Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — AIR GUNS AND SHOT GUNS, ETC., BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE AND POSSESSION OF AIR WEAPONS.)

11.5 a.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out "fourteen" and to insert "sixteen".

Mr. Speaker: No doubt the discussion should also include the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "fourteen" to insert "sixteen".

Sir B. Janner: Yes. The two Amendments are based on the same argument and I will direct my attention to both.
This is not an attempt in any sense to wreck the Bill, Which the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has introduced with the best intentions. Even if my Amendment is rejected—and I hope that it will not be—he has taken at least some steps in the direction in which we have all been striving. I understand that the Government's heart has been softened only sufficiently to agree to the proposals already before the house, but they may change their views after they have heard my argument.
This is a very serious matter which has to be considered in the light of the experience of a vast number of people in the country. I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents 27½ million people, and I have gone very carefully into this situation. The Association is of the opinion that it is not safe to leave these instruments in the hands of young people under the age of 17. For the purposes of the Amendment I must

confine my remarks to the age of 16, but by showing that the argument applies even beyond that age I can indicate how important this matter is.
The farmers' unions, which are watching what is happening in the countryside, are very keen that this protection should be provided against the machinations of young hooligans who, week by week, go into the countryside and kill or mutilate birds or animals in what they regard as a great outing.
Some time ago I tried, I think successfully, to convince the House that certain instruments—the flick knife, for example—were becoming desirable acquisitions for young people who did not feel that they were really men and, in some cases, women unless they had such a knife. Thugs, people who are criminally inclined, although much could be done in protecting ourselves from their ideas and designs, will find ways and means of getting hold of shot guns or air guns and will carry out their own designs in spite of endeavours by the law to prevent them from so doing.
The big danger is the young boy who is really a decent fellow at heart—of course, that applies to the vast majority of our young people—but who feels that it is great fun to go out with a gun and have what he considers some sport in the country, or, perhaps, in the town shooting at a lamp post, and indulge in what he considers to be natural human animal spirits, if I may put it in that way, and have a real good time. Those of us, like myself, who are most anxious that we should not interfere with the legitimate enjoyment of young people and should not unduly curb their activities are deeply distressed about the situation which has arisen. Time after time the magistrates in Leicester have told the public, through the instrumentality of their decisions, how upset they were about and how seriously they regarded youngsters up to the age of 17 having weapons of this nature, which can so easily be obtained, since there is practically no restriction on their sale.
The information which the Home Office has received from police forces throughout the country points to the conclusion that the increase in the number of accidents which I have mentioned is mainly attributable to the careless or malicious use of air guns, air pistols and


air rifles, by young people under the age 17. The number of injuries resulting from the use of air guns reported to the police was 390 in the three years ended 28th February, 1934, and no fewer than 2,712 for the three years ended 1st December, 1958. That is a seven-fold increase. The biggest increase within that figure, namely, from 141 to 1,234, was in accidents caused when young people aged 14 to 17 years were the users of the weapon. There was a considerable increase, namely, from 162 to 918, among users of these weapons under 14 years of age.
11.15 a.m.
I cannot speak more eloquently than that in support of the Amendment. I could not possibly have had the information to enable me to make this contention in the debate on the Game Licences and Gun Licences Bill on 10th March, 1961, in which the Minister of State participated. I cannot see for the life of me how he can go back on what he said then. Perhaps he has had other thoughts since then, but only a year ago he was very disturbed about the position and spoke in terms similar to those which I have used.
When I spoke during the Committee stage of the Bill, in dealing with the question of increasing the age limit to 17 years, I put forward what I thought was a fairly reasonable argument in favour of the Amendment. I emphasised that human beings were being deprived of their eyesight, and maimed and injured in various ways, not through the viciousness of the lad with a weapon such as those that we are considering, but owing to accidents which occurred or other unfortunate incidents resulting in injuries which the lad using the weapon would not have dreamt of inflicting on the injured person. In many cases, those using the weapons may have been affected themselves for life because of the injury which they had inflicted on some other boy or girl. Their peace of mind might easily have been disturbed and their emotions affected as a result.
I have made a number of inquiries about the suffering of animals from the use of these weapons. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been concerned for many

years about the indiscriminate shooting of animals and birds by young people with air guns. The Society strongly supports the Bill and the Amendment. It thinks that the Bill would be much more effective if the age limit under which young people were forbidden to possess these weapons was higher than 14. I have here some examples which I think will help the House to come to a decision on this matter and which, I hope, will influence the promoter of the Bill. I see that he has a wry smile in his eye which, perhaps, indicates that he does not feel able to accept the Amendment. I think that he is a little frightened that the authorities might interfere if we press the matter too far.
An R.S.P.C.A. inspector in Sussex reports a case of three boys prosecuted for shooting and wounding thirteen cows. All the cows were wounded in and around the udder. The boys were 15 and 16. A senior inspector at Blackpool reports two separate cases in Fleetwood of boys aged 16 and 17 discharging air guns in the street, one resulting in another boy being hit in the face. An inspector in Cheshire reports nine separate cases of youths shooting at birds and animals with air guns and four were 14 or 15 years old.
Another inspector from Middlesex states:
… one has only to walk over any rough ground in this district at weekends and you meet up to a dozen persons under the age of 17 carrying air guns or pistols.
Another inspector states:
Usually lads between the ages of 12 and 18 years wander down suburban and country lanes shooting at anything in sight. I have taken a lad aged 16 to court for shooting with an air rifle at domestic pigeons in February this year.
An inspector from Swansea says:
I have had two cases at court this year … a 16 year old youth shooting and wounding a pigeon with an air gun—a 17 year old youth shooting and wounding a cat, which had to be destroyed.
An inspector from Yorkshire reports a boy of 15 shooting and blinding a swan and said that he also shot several pellets at children as they came out of school. A chief inspector in Westmorland reports a case of four youths shooting at and stoning a hedgehog. One aged 16 was responsible for shooting the hedgehog, which he did with a ·177 calibre Diana air rifle. Although injured


by pellets and stones, the hedgehog was still alive when it was rescued from the youths, although it was later humanely destroyed. Another report comes from Hampshire and concerns a youth of 17 but is outside the scope of the Amendment, Those are but a few of the many cases of youths between the ages of 14 and 17 injuring and maiming animals and birds. There are innumerable cases of youths over 14 injuring other young people as well as adults with air guns.
That is what is said by the R.S.P.C.A. which exercises its duty to the best of its skill and ability. So far, we have the Association of Municipal Corporations and the National Farmers' Union in support of the Amendment. I have no doubt that the County Councils Association will follow the same line. My constituents are very perturbed, and I, for one, find that extremely serious. My constituents are perturbed only when it is reasonable that they should be. Most of them are behind me on this issue and many are deeply disturbed about what is happening.
Another instance concerns a farmer at Chalfont St. Giles who wrote to say that he had found a 12-bore a most effective deterrent when faced by "marauding itinerants." He wrote to say that he had run into a new problem—"gun-crazy" youths aged not between 14 and 17. but between 16 and 20. He says:
They enjoy ever-increasing hunting expeditions in the Hodgemore Woods and they are not particular about their targets. The local police are worried about them shooting song birds. Some of my men were working in a field when they heard this buzzing noise. They thought at first it was just bees droning past but when they looked up they saw four youths on top of the water tower. They appeared to be shooting at my chaps with a ·22 rifle. My men ran like the devil to get under cover and later we saw the same four youths driving away in a car. That was some weeks ago now but last week some of these youths shot out the lamps on my tractor which was parked near the woods. It is the second time that has happened.
He says that the majority of the youths are local. It was said in Committee that most of these incidents occurred in town, but I am sorry to say that some of our country youths occasionally, if not often, come into the same category. However, he says that others probably come from Uxbridge or London and regularly indulge in "shooting orgies". He says:

They come by car and motor scooter and have a regular arsenal of arms at their disposal. I have seen everything up there bar a machine gun and I dare say it will not be long before they have use of those also. People think they use only air guns but I have seen them even with revolvers.
That is an ordinary farmer who may be speaking subjectively to some extent, although the incident was reported in a local newspaper and I do not think there was any agitation to show that he was speaking contrary to the facts. On the contrary, I have not heard of anyone who has denied the legitimacy of the argument. Similar letters have come from all over the country.
The women's organisations are up in arms about this matter and I warn the Minister that once the women get on the track, he is in for trouble. He has sufficient vision and imagination to know what the result may be if he does not do something. I have a letter from a woman which says:
I am afraid I am too late to be of much use though I have contacted the R.S.P.C.A. and the police earlier, but if the air gun age could have been raised to 17, it would have been a great blessing. During the Christmas holidays a gang of boys ranged our farmland here shooting everything that moved. Birds, even at the bird tables, were the chief targets and we kept finding them dead or winged. At this the local constable intervened and gave them a lecture, at which they laughed loudly. When I asked him about our birds, though sympathetic, he said there was no redress unless they happened to be game or on the protected list.
I have dozens and dozens of such letters and I have had verbal communications of all sorts. I hope that the illustrations I have given have been sufficient to encourage the Minister to say that there is no need for this debate to continue and that he is prepared to accept the Amendment.

11.30 a.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: It is always a very pleasant feature of a Private Member's Bill that it results in co-operation between hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to say a word of appreciation of the work that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has done over the years in this matter. I have been associated with him in this campaign for more than three years; I think that it goes back much further than that. We were unfortunate with the previous Bill. The hon. Member for


Leicester, North-West is not one of the supporters named on the back of the Bill, but he is very definitely a strong supporter of it, and I think that we should be grateful to him.

Sir B. Janner: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for the very generous way in which he has referred to me. I had hoped to back the Bill but it had to be presented rather rapidly. I am sure that the promoter realises that I would very willingly have done so.

Sir L. Heald: I want to make it clear that we appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman has done. It has been a considerable task to bring this Measure to the position it is now in. I say at once that I have the greatest possible sympathy with the Amendment, but I wanted to point out the difficulties in connection with Private Members' Bills and the necessity to accept what we can get if we find that we cannot persuade the authorities to go further.
It is more than three years since we started on this operation. There is no doubt at all that public opinion has been alerted to a considerable extent, particularly, as the hon. Member mentioned, the National Farmers' Union. It is a right and proper feature of our national life that the period of gestation of the Farmers' Union is perhaps like that of the elephant. It takes quite a long time to get on to the job. It has now come to the view that this is a serious problem. The question is whether we can hope to achieve the result that we want by means of Amendments to this Bill. As one of the supporters of the Bill, I feel considerable responsibility, but I fear that we shall have great difficulty. I do not want the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West to think for one moment that I am saying anything that is not encouraging to him, but I feel that it may be that this is not the way in which we can finally solve this problem, and there is more to it than we can hope to achieve by this Bill.
The Farmers' Union naturally takes the view that the hon. Gentleman is right in regard to age, but even the age of 17 is not sufficient to meet every point. I think that the point of view

of the Farmers' Union is that this is much more a question of licensing. The real reason why this trouble occurs is that these young people are in possession of weapons for which they have no real legitimate use. A youth of 16, 17 or 18 who lives in a suburban or semi-suburban area, who has no connection with farming, no relations who are farmers, does not need to visit farms in connection with shooting. What need is there for him to have a gun at all? I know that it is not in order to discuss this at length, so I only say, by way perhaps of comfort and encouragement to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, that I think there is a very strong tide of opinion, led particularly now by the Fanners' Union and many other organisations, in the direction of inquiring how far it is really desirable or legitimate for these young people to get gun licences or be in possession of air guns at all.
It may be within the recollection of the House that I had to take a rather remarkable step to bring attention to this, so that it received any serious consideration at all, by purchasing a gun licence for a shot gun for my granddaughter aged three.

Mr. Speaker: On that occasion, if I remember rightly, the right hon. and learned Member was not subject to the limitations of this Amendment. I think that his purchase of his grand-daughter's licence would be equally possible whether the limit in the Bill was 14 or 16.

Sir L. Heald: I will obey your implied injunction, Mr. Speaker, and stick to the Amendment.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After all, the child is father to the man. It may well be that it affects the position as regards safety when the child reaches the age of 16.

Mr. Speaker: I am not able to follow the distinction. What governs the matter of order is the difference between 14 and 16. A child of three is within both categories.

Sir L. Heald: I should like to say that the only reason I made this explanation was that, as one of the supporters of the Bill, I should like the hon. Member for Leicester, North-west to appreciate that I have every possible sympathy with his


point of view, but I feel that it might endanger the Bill. It may be that in view of the discussions that there have been and the difficulty that we had on the previous occasion, when at the very last moment the Bill was defeated after it had been through all its stages except the last, we shall be unable to persuade the Government to adopt this Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain why he says that the acceptance of this Amendment would endanger the Bill? As I understood it, the attitude of the Home Office as indicated in the Minister's speech in Committee was one of complete neutrality. Surely, on an Amendment of this kind to a Private Member's Bill, the question posed is one for decision by the House. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the House is able to vote either for or against this Amendment without endangering the Bill. It was not obvious to me why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to support the Amendment or why he should think that if the Amendment were carried, whatever the views of the Home Office, there would be any danger to the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): May I be allowed to clarify the point raised?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, but at present it is in the form of an intervention on an intervention. I think that I had better discover whether the right hon and learned Member has concluded his speech.

Sir L. Heald: I do not know whether I shall give the same answer as my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench will give. As I understand it, the attitude of neutrality was on the basis of age. I am all in favour of the Amendment being accepted, but I am anxious, as this is the only opportunity I shall have, to point out that I believe that there is considerable difficulty in changing a figure of this kind, once it has arrived in the Bill as a result of a number of discussions with various interests and individuals of all kinds. Therefore, if that does happen I shall regret it very much. I am not saying that I do not support the Amendment, but I do say

that it may well be that it will not be possible to achieve it. I am most anxious to make it clear that I do not believe for a moment that that will mean that nothing more can be done. This is by no means the end of the story. This is the beginning of the story because this Bill can only begin to tackle the problem which we must not allow to rest where it is.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for expressing what, in my view, is the view of the country. People all over the country are alarmed at this problem, and I think that the Amendment would go a long way to meeting many of the dangers. But I subscribe to the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), that in these Private Bills one has to get what one can. One has to perhaps accept possibly less than one would like to see on the Statute Book.
We all agree that this is really the first stage of a problem which has to be tackled either by licence or in some other way. I make no bones about it. I am in favour of the Amendment and I Chink that we would be wise to accept it. I shall, however, carefully consider what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has to say. I hope that he will state categorically that this is the first stage in what will at a later date be a major reform in this field, particularly in considering the possibility of licences.
My right hon. and learned Friend rightly asked what a young boy of 16 living in a municipal area wants with an air gun. If he lives in the country, that is another matter, but in London why is it necessary for these boys to have guns? In many cases there are no proper ranges on which these guns can be used and, as a result, lamp posts are used as targets. The owners of the guns are a general nuisance. It is high time that we accepted the age suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West but I will listen to what my hon. and learned Friend has to say.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I fully endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said about the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). We all know the great interest which the


hon. Gentleman has taken in these matters, starting with flick knives, and one almost expects catapults to be brought in, if they have not already been included.
The hon. Gentleman moved a similar Amendment during the Committee state, and at that time I tried to give pretty fully the reasons why I thought it was desirable to leave the age as it is in the Bill. This age has been arrived at after consultation with a lot of people with differing interests, and though I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that this is something which could be decided by the House of Commons, unfortunately this is not the last stage of the Bill. It has to go through a further stage in another place, and it might run into trouble there. This is an early stage in legislation of this sort, and I think therefore that we ought to move reasonably cautiously.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) is opposed to any form of restriction. When looking at the casualty figures—and there have been increasing casualties in the 14 to 17 group—one has to remember that some of these casualties may well have occurred on private property, which is excluded from a lot of the provisions of the Bill. Whatever the rise in the number of accidents in the 14 to 17 group, I do not think that we can assume that they all occurred in public places.
If the Amendment were accepted, we would bring in as it were an added complication by creating a new category. Most of our firearms legislation deals with young people of 14 and 17. If the Amendment were accepted, we would bring in another category. that of the young person aged 16. We would then run into further complications because of the difficulty of the definitions of a child and young person. At the moment we use the ages of 14 and 17 to deal with these categories.
11.45 a.m.
There is this further point. If the Amendment were accepted and the possession of weapons was prohibited for children under 16, it would mean that we would have another complication in the Bill, because young persons between 16 and 17 would be able to carry air rifles or air guns in public

places, provided that they were carried secured fastened. One would therefore be making what is a reasonably simple Measure—and I hope because of its comparative simplicity enforceable—very much more complicated, and because of the complications prevent it achieving what we want.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider this as a first stage to try to deal with this problem and accept the Bill in the form in which it came from the Committee, and agree to see how it works with the prohibitions suggested in it rather than at this late stage try to make some alterations which may complicate the enforcement of the Bill, and may in addition upset the possibility of achieving this small measure of the agreed prohibition in the use of air guns or air rifles. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: As I pointed out in Committee, the Government's attitude to the Bill as a whole is one of neutrality. We are, however, anxious to ensure that the Bill is properly drafted, is enforceable, and is not unnecessarily restrictive.
There are those who would like to see the possession of air weapons by children and young persons prohibited altogether. On the other hand, there are those who take the view that people who are likely to have a legitimate use for guns later in life should be properly trained in their use at an early age, and that air weapons provide a safe means of training in the use of other weapons. As I understand the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), it is to make a reasonable compromise between those opposing views, but there is room for endless argument as to the precise age at which the control should be imposed.
From the point of view of preventing malicious damage—with which local authorities are concerned and with which the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) was largely concerned—there is something to be said for putting the age pretty high. But we must carefully consider the implications of doing so. I propose to invite the attention of the Committee to those implications.
In Committee the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West unsuccessfully moved several Amendments which would have applied to people between the ages of 14 and 17—those who are technically known as "young persons"—all the restrictions imposed by Clause 1 on the possession of air weapons by children under 14, according to the Bill. He is now confining his efforts to subsection (1) of that Clause and he suggests that the limit should be extended so that the subsection would refer to persons under the age of 16. Under Section 19 of the Firearms Act, 1937—and I hope that this may be of consolation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—it is an offence for a young person—

Sir B. Janner: I want the House to be clear about this. The reason why I changed my mind with regard to the age of 17 was that I had to bow to force majeure. That is why I brought the age down to 16. I should have been very pleased to have moved that the age limit should be raised to 17 had I been permitted.

Mr. Renton: We all appreciate the position in which the hon. Member finds himself. In Committee he made a valiant attempt to persuade hon. Members that the whole of Clause 1 should apply to all young people under the age of 17. He failed in that attempt and, although there is no doubt a last ditch in which he is prepared to die, he has fallen back to a further line of defence.
When I was interrupted I was expressing the hope that it would be a consolation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey that under Section 19 of the Firearms Act, 1937, it is an offence for a person under the age of 17 to purchase or hire a firearm, including an air weapon. It is also an offence to sell or hire a firearm to a person under that age. If the Amendment were accepted it would also become an offence to give an air weapon to a person under 16, or for a person under 16 to accept an air weapon as a gift. The effect would be that although the Bill permits possession of air weapons by persons between the ages of 14 and 17, subject to certain

safeguards, the only weapon which a young person could lawfully possess in certain circumstances would be a borrowed one.
We have to consider whether it is right to force young people into a position where, although they would be allowed in certain circumstances to use a weapon, the only weapons they could use would be a borrowed one.

Sir B. Janner: Why not?

Mr. Renton: That would be one of the effects of the Amendment, and it is for the House to consider whether it would be a sensible one. The intention of the existing prohibition on the selling and hiring of these weapons to persons under 17 is that these young persons could not come into possession of the weapons without the knowledge of their parents or guardians, who would be responsible for deciding whether and under what conditions their children should be allowed to use them.
We admit that the existing provisions of the law have not been effective in securing an adequate degree of parental supervision—which is also part of the hon. Member's case—but it is doubtful whether the Amendments which he proposes would rectify that situation. A parent who is disposed to give an air weapon to a boy under 17 would be no less disposed to lend him one until he attained that age. This argument admittedly applies also to giving an air weapon to children under 14, which the Bill seeks to prohibit, but if the Bill becomes law a person between the ages of 14 and 17 will be able lawfully to possess an air weapon in a variety of circumstances where that possession by a child under 14 would be unlawful, and it would be unreasonable to enact that the only weapon he could possess in such circumstances was a borrowed one.

Mr. Fletcher: Why?

Mr. Renton: It is a matter of opinion, or judgment. I am merely informing the House of the present legal position, what the position under the Bill would be, and what the effects of the Amendment would be, and it will be for the House to decide whether the Bill or the Amendments are right.
The effect of the Amendments in subsections (1) and (2), to substitute 16 for 14 would be to prohibit the possession of weapons by children under 16 except in the circumstances permitted by subsections (4) and (5). But young people between the ages of 16 and 17 would be able to carry air rifles and air guns in public places, provided that they were carried in a securely fastened cover.

Sir B. Janner: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to put in a written Amendment so that we can change the age to 17 again, subject to the approval of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renton: I do not think that any of the inconsistencies, anomalies or difficulties which arise are likely to be cured by a simple written Amendment that I might hand in for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I have no intention of doing so.
On the general question whether the more stringent restrictions imposed by subsections (1) and (2) should apply only up to the age of 14 or to a higher age, it is right for me to maintain the Government's attitude of neutrality, but in case the House should be tempted to consider that a higher age than 14 should be fixed I must point out that the age of 16 is not a suitable one. It would unnecessarily and without good reason complicate the law by introducing a new age, different from the ages at which successive degrees of control are imposed by the Firearms Act. There is another and perhaps stronger reason: under our law relating to children and young persons a clear division has been made for many years between children—that is, those who are under the age of 14—and young persons—that is, those who are under the age of 14—and young persons—that is, those who have reached the age of 14 but are under 17.
12 noon.
It is surely undesirable to introduce yet a third category unless there are extremely strong reasons for doing so. My advice to the House therefore is that from at any rate the technical point of view—and this is not being just legalistic, it is being sensible—there is no case for the age of 16 in the event of a higher age than 14 being thought

right for the restrictive provisions of subsections (1) and (2).
I have endeavoured to enlighten the House on a fairly complicated situation. What it comes to is that on the broad question of principle the Government are neutral. We feel that it is for the House to decide whether these restrictions should apply to children, as they are technically known in the law, and only to children, or whether they are to apply to young persons as well. That is the issue and it is for the House to decide.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister of State has been scrupulously fair and impartial in the speech he has just made and in the advice he has given to the House. He has indicated that on the question of principle involved the Home Office is entirely neutral and that this is a matter for the House to decide. He has also pointed out certain technical difficulties which would arise if the age limit were raised from 14 to 16. The Amendment deals with the problem of raising the age limit from 14 to 16.
It was implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would have thought that 17 was a better age than 16, because that would have avoided certain anomalies and difficulties that might otherwise have arisen, but we can deal only with the question of principle—whether the age should be raised from 14. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), for technical reasons, has had to propose a limit of 16 although he would have preferred 17, and I gather that hon. and right hon. Members opposite who have spoken in favour in principle of the Amendment might also have preferred the age of 17.
The Minister spoke on this matter in Committee and when it came to a vote he abstained, as one would have expected, from voting in the Division. In other words, he did not oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment that the age limit should be raised from 14 to 17. Therefore, the question today is merely whether 16 is better than 14. Apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Mal don (Mr. B. Harrison), the promoter of this most valuable Bill, it seems to me that the general opinion of the House is that 14 is too low an age and that it ought to be raised. I will do no more


than emphasise some of the reasons already given in saying that I support the view that 14 is too low an age and it should be raised.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, I am also a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations and I am conscious of the association's strong views on this subject in favour of this Amendment. Apart from the technicalities which the Minister urged might be put forward against the Amendment, his only substantial reason was that because the use of shot guns is legitimate in the case of certain adults it is therefore necessary that they should have training in their use at an early age. That was the Minister's argument.

The Amendment does not affect that argument at all because, as I read subsections (2) and (5), opportunities for instruction in clubs will remain at the age of 14. Whether that is right or wrong I do not know, but I should have thought that if the argument is that children at some age should have proper professional training in the use of air weapons it was quite adequate for them to start their education in the use of weapons at the age of 16 or 17 and that it was quite unnecessary for them to be encouraged in their use at the age of 14.

The salient fact that has arisen in all these debates, which were initiated last year by the hon. Member for Maldon, is that there is throughout the country a growing concern about the serious marked increase in the number of injuries produced by air guns in the last twenty to thirty years. The largest part of this increase has come from air guns in the hands of youths aged 14 to 17, although a substantial part has come from guns used by children under 14. Whereas the increase in injuries due to shot guns was much smaller—about 50 per cent. over a period of twenty-five years—on the other hand air gun injuries have increased in the last twenty-five years by 700 per cent. Therefore, public opinion rightly demands that something should be done to check this shocking growth of injuries, malicious damage and hooliganism of all kinds arising from the use of air guns in the hands of young people.

I am not at all impressed by the Minister's argument that there is some tech

nical flaw and that a child who could not have a gun of his own might be able to use a borrowed gun. It does not seem to be realistic to urge against this principle of parental supervision that a parent would be prohibited from giving his child a shot-gun but, in certain circumstances if the child were over 14, would not be prohibited from lending him a gun. If we are anxious to strengthen the provisions of the law and also to strengthen parental control over children acquiring, being given, borrowing or obtaining shot guns, obviously this is a most valuable reform and I would urge the House to accept the Amendment.

Largely for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the hon. Member for Abingdon, I want to deal with their fears that by supporting the Amendment they would be endangering the Bill. In my view the contrary is the case. If the Amendment is carried to a Division, as I hope it will be, then if it is challenged by the promoters of the Bill or anybody else there is a risk that owing to the smallness of the numbers difficulties might arise.

Sir L. Heald: Does the hon. Member think it desirable to have a Division on a Measure like this? The hon. Member has not been quite so occupied with this subject as some of us have been.

Mr. Fletcher: I was saying that I do not think it would be desirable to have a Division. I was saying to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I hope he will avoid a Division. I hope that those in favour of the principle of this Amendment will support it, and by so doing avoid a Division. The Minister has said that the Government are neutral on this point and that it is a matter for the House to decide. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who have spoken so often in support of the principle of this Amendment, will not venture to jeopardise the Bill by opposing the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I wish to speak merely on the question of the ages of 14 and 16. I apologise for not having been in the Chamber when the debate commenced, but that is the only point in which I have any interest. Several Parliamentary Sessions ago we


discussed a Bill which dealt with some of the minor forms of gambling and the age at which young persons should be able to participate in them. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) wanted to make the minimum age 18, and I suggested that the proper age was 16 because we were legislating for young people of about the age when compulsory attendance at school no longer applies. From their point of view that time is a great watershed in the lives of young people.
At present the school-leaving age is 15. From reading what happens at all-party conferences, I understand that there is now general agreement that it ought to be 16, though it is unlikely that in my lifetime it will be raised to 16. I recollect the years during which everybody agreed that the age should be 15. But in the belief that within a reasonably short time the age of 16 will be the watershed in the lives of young people we put 16 into the legislation to which I have referred.
I think that we should look at this matter from the point of view particularly of boys—though I appreciate that girls come into it, and I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) once gave a grandchild or a niece, aged three and a half, a licence to have a shot-gun—and it seems to me that if we can link these things with the age when compulsory attendance at school ends, we shall have regard to the outlook on life of young people of that age. I suggest to the Minister of State that that is a valid consideration. The lives of these young people are sufficiently complicated now. If there is some date such as that when they are released from compulsory attendance at school, which for them is a sort of coming of age date, from the point of view of their conduct towards society, it seems to me that we should apply that age as generally as possible.

Sir L. Heald: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. May I ask whether he would agree that it is a question of getting all the relevant legislation dealing with these matters into line? As he and his hon. Friends will be aware, there is the Firearms Act, and it might be that we should see that the same age applies in all these things.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: There is no reason why we should not make a start. It is the case that the best is so often the enemy of the good. When dealing with matters like fixing a minimum age at which they may possess and use an offensive weapon, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with young persons who are developing. I should like to see the minimum age of 16 applied generally. But I have not the general law before me today; I have only the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey as the embodiment of the general law. But I have got something which seems to me to be a practical issue and provides an opportunity to move towards the ideal which I wish to attain. In the House of Commons I am generally in the minority, and if I see an opportunity to take a step along the road I wish to travel I welcome it.
I hope there will be a general recognition that 14 is too young and that 16 is a better age on all considerations, except for the fact that there are other Acts on the Statute Book dealing with similar things where the age is different from 16. But I should like to see the age of 16 adopted generally. If we ever have an Order in Council, which is all that is required, to raise the school-leaving age to 16, I hope that the same age will be used in all these matters. That will be the age which marks the passage from childhood to the condition of being a young person. For the reasons I have given, and to be consistent with my actions in regard to other Measures, I prefer the age of 16 to that of 14. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) chooses to call a Division is no concern of mine. My hon. Friend sits on the Opposition Front Bench above the Gangway, and I shall have to do what he tells me.

Mr. Renton: In courtesy to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think one should point out that we are not dealing with the question of the difference between the ages of 14 and 16. We are dealing with the difference between those who are under 14 and those who are under 16.

Sir B. Janner: That makes the case much worse. I wish to appeal to the


Minister to reconsider his decision entirely. I had not put that argument before because I anticipated that everyone knew it. But, now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has emphasised the point, I should like to give him a few figures to help him to come to a conclusion. I have here figures relating to injuries sustained by young people under the age of 14, and between the ages of 14 and 16. These figures were recorded in respect of offences by 66 borough police authorities from many of the large towns and cities of England and Wales. In 1959 there were 98 cases involving children under 14 and 101 of the ages of 14, 15 and 16. For 1960 the figures are 121 and 129, and for 1961 they are 128 and 147.
The age of 16 has been suggested. I will analyse the figures. For the ages 14 and 15, respectively, the figures were 53 and 30. That is 83 as against 98 under 14. In the year 1960 the number under 14 was 121, and for the ages 14 and 15 it was 102. In 1961 there were 128 under 14 and 117 aged 14 and 15. I appeal to the Minister. He did not answer the point which I put to him. He made a very reasonable speech, part of which I quoted, in which he indicated frankly and freely the position concerned with air guns. This is a question only of shot guns. I can give the Minister the quotation to refresh his memory. I do not think I am misleading the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Air guns serve little if any useful purpose, as I have said. It is not considered that any genuine hardship can arise by applying restrictive provisions to them. Shot guns, however have a legitimate use for the killing of game …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 907.]
He went much further than I am asking that we should go. I cannot put the age of 17 into this Amendment, but he may think that the age should go up to 16, and that is a matter which I beg him to consider.
I do not think it fair that the Minister should not answer what he himself has asked us to consider. The position is serious. I quite agree that the age of responsibility in so far as there is a distinction between 14 and 17 is defined in other Acts. What the law says is that the age of responsibility in the matter of juvenile delinquency shall be

considered in two phases, up to 14 and from 14 to 17. It is a fact, which I do not think will be denied, that there are more juvenile delinquents coming before the courts of the ages of 14 and up to 17 than those brought before the courts up to the age of 14. I have it on very strong authority—perhaps the strongest I could quote, that of a magistrate in my area—who tells me that the major proportion of the cases with which she has had to deal in the eighteen months that she has been on the juvenile bench are of individuals between the ages of 14 and 17.
Why is the Home Office so "sticky" about this matter? It is not opposing, but I should like the Minister to come forward wholeheartedly instead of halfheartedly. It is difficult in these circumstances to decide what to do, and I think we must let this go in view of the opinion of other hon. Members on this side of the House. I cannot withdraw the Amendment, but I hope that nothing will be done on either side to endanger the Bill.

Sir L. Heald: That is what the hon. Member is doing.

Sir B. Janner: No, I do not think so. I think it will be realised that that is not so.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3.—(OFFENCES.)

Mr. B. Harrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "both", to insert:
(or, as the case may be, to be dealt with as for an offence which, if committed by an adult, is punishable on summary conviction with such imprisonment or such a fine or both)".
This is a drafting Amendment. It has been thought that as the Bill creates offences which can be committed only by children and young persons as provided in Clause 2, it might conceivably be interpreted as outwith the provisions of earlier Statutes which impose restrictions on children and young persons. Nothing is further from the intention. I think this Amendment puts it beyond doubt that these provisions apply where appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. B. Harrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "lending".
This again is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members will remember that the references to borrowing and lending were removed from the Bill in Committee. This Amendment will tidy the Bill up, because the word "lending" is no longer necessary in this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Sir B. Janner: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert:
'target practice' shall not include firing at living animals or birds".
I hope that in this instance the House will see fit to accept my Amendment, or that at least we shall have an indication from the powers that be that they will not interfere by indicating a danger to the Bill in the event of the Amendment being accepted. The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid the kind of thing which is happening in many parts of the country by preventing some lawyer, or keen layman, from using a technical point in order to upset the intention of this Clause. The position is that the Bill as drafted would permit a member of a club to use an air gun at any time "in connection with target practice."
Some people may think that this is raising a rather technical point, but I point out that it would enable a person to develop his shooting abilities by firing at animals and birds and claiming that that was target practice. I hope that the House will consider this Amendment favourably. I should like there to be a provision in the Bill so that target practice does not include shooting at living birds or animals. There was an interesting letter in either the Leicester Mercury or the Leicester Mail which pinpointed this question. The correspondent wrote:
It was a typical February day …
A poetic start—
cold with ice in the wind. A dull-toned day, except where the clouds broke and revealed the pure blue above, and crocuses thrust their coloured lamps through the turf.
I do not want anyone to imagine that this is just a poetical reference, although some poetic licence is used later. The correspondent writes in attractive terms about what was happening in the parks of Leicester, as follows:

A pleasant and invigorating scene until the villains entered in the shape of three youths, little more than children, with a gun, potting into every tree where a bird, preoccupied with housing sites and building, presented an easy target. We wondered about the perky robin which questioned us with a big eye a yard or so in front of us on the path; and the thrush on the fence, proud-breasted and so vulnerable. And we wondered how long it will be before our parks are denuded of these harmless little creatures which are such a joy to see and to hear. Is there to be no stop to this murderous desecration of our city parks? As we came out of the park we were fortunate enough to run into a police constable and sergeant, to whom we reported the matter. They told us that boys were allowed to carry a gun on the park but not to fire it!They obligingly walked through the park—to see no doubt the boys innocently carrying their gun.
Let me quote another typical example of the destruction of animal life. From the Leicester Mercury I quote,
The use of air guns on parks and open spaces increased during the year, as indicated by the cases of wild birds and ducks found shot or injured. The rookery in Abbey Park was deserted due to persecution of birds by youths with air rifles.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are these youths members of a club? I do not follow the relevance of the argument to the Amendment.

12.30 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: It may well be that they were members of a club, and they were certainly grouped together. They were individuals going about together. I do not know what is meant by "members of a club". I may be wrong on this point and I am open to correction, but I imagine that three or four people might well call themselves a club for this purpose and come within the terms of the Clause.

Mr. B. Harrison: I wonder whether they would come within the term
a club approved by the Secretary of State".

Sir B. Janner: Why not? The Minister of State does not mind. He has shown us so today. He does not care a hang whether birds are killed as long as they are over 14.

Mr. Harrison: The birds?

Sir B. Janner: The birds or the people shooting the birds. Of course, the Minister of State does care about this, but he has not sufficient courage to oppose violently those who are with


him in office. I hope that he will not regard that as an offensive remark. I am sure that he would have come the whole way with us; I know him well enough to believe that that is the case. But it is a question of force majeure in certain quarters so that even a Minister of ability is not able to do all that he wishes to do.
If a club utilises living animals as targets, I cannot see how they can be prevented from doing so by the Bill as it stands. I am sure that the promoter of the Bill does not want that to happen. But a target can be a living target. Indeed, it might well be held that in order to teach someone to shoot, it is best to use a living target.
The argument seems as clear as the "way to parish church". I do not want a living target to be used. The Amendment would prevent people from using a living target. This may be regarded as a technical matter, but as a lawyer I am sure that the question Which could be asked by the magistrate is, "What is a target?". If he does not acknowledge What a target is in a legal sense, then it is easy for an advocate to convince him that it could be a living animal and to argue, on those grounds, that the defendant has no case to answer. If someone is accused of having been a member of a club and having shot a living bird, I am sure that by this argument he could claim that there was no case to answer.
I defy even the Minister to be ingenous enough to prove that there would be a case to answer. Does he think that in a court of law, with his experience of advocacy, he would fail with a claim that there was no case to answer?

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: In the concluding words of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) we saw the reason for the Amendment—namely, the perspicacious reading of any legislation by him from the point of view of one singularly skilled in and with an excellent reputation for threading his way, legitimately and in the interests of others, through legislation of this kind. As a very junior member of the profession of which he is a senior member, I pay tribute to him for his reputation in this respect, but I wonder whether even his ingenuity has

not been strained a little. He opened to me a most pleasurable vista. There is a shooting club in the House, which I have no doubt is approved by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1937, and if the hon. Member's argument is right, and if we as hon. Members while engaged as members of this club or while taking part in target practice chose to shoot at another hon. Member, we should not be committing an offence under the Bill. This opens up vistas of carrying Parliamentary debates into fields which the lines on the Floor of the Chamber indicated we gave up many centuries ago.

Sir B. Janner: The hon. Member credits me with a certain amount of ability for representing a case, but a human being can hardly be regarded as a target for practice by a reputable club, although he is regarded as a target by those between the ages of 14 and 17.

Mr. van Straubenzee: But it does not say so in the Bill, and I am following precisely what the hon. Member started.
To be serious, I do not think that he means us to assume that any reputable club, such as one which would be registered as the Act provides, would for one moment permit a living target, human or otherwise, to be used by its members to shoot at while engaged as members of the club or in connection with target practice. The hon. Gentleman is very much more familiar than I am with this aspect, but it is easy in drafting, although one appears to be tying up all loose ends, in fact by being so precise actually to tie the hands of those who later have to interpret legislation rather than to give them greater freedom. For instance, since in the definition Clause we shall, if the Amendment is accepted, have inserted the proposed words about target practice, we might limit the discretion of a magistrate rather than prevent the very thing which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I cannot imagine that we in the House will fall out seriously on this, because it is obvious that the cases which the hon. Gentleman was permitted to mention in his speech would not in any case fall within the Bill as drafted. They would not be members of a club. They would not be engaged as such members and they would not be engaged in target practice if they were shooting in the parks


of Leicester while the crocuses were displaying their beauties in the poetic way the hon. Gentleman revealed to us.
It was useful for us to have this discussion. I, for one, subject to what my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill may say, certainly do not feel a strong sense of aversion to the proposed words. However, the House must treat those whom we represent throughout the country as reasonable, sensible human beings. When they are constituted together as a club, registered as such in the way that this House has previously prescribed, if we lay down solemnly that their targets shall not include living creatures, such as animals or birds, we shall credit to our constituents throughout the country a lack of humanity which I doubt that we are entitled to assume in them.

Mr. B. Harrison: I followed with great interest the poetic quotations of the hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Sir B. Janner). There seem to be two difficulties about the Amendment. First, Clause 1 (5, a), in which the phrase "target practice" appears, was taken from the Firearms Act, 1937. If we define "target practice" in this Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests and do not have it so defined in the Firearms Act, there could be a possible misinterpretation that under this Bill one must not fire at live birds whereas under the Firearms Act that can be done.
Secondly, I should hate any inference to be drawn from the Amendment that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was likely to license such a club where live targets would be used. Before the Home Secretary approves a club, he has to ascertain that it has proper safety precautions, proper fixed targets, etc. Provided that no inference will be drawn that my right hon. Friend might license a club which uses live animals as targets, and having made these two points, in order to compromise I recommend to the House that we accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: My advice to the House is that the Amendment is innocuous but unnecessary. It does not matter at all whether it is added to the Bill or not. The intention expressed by the hon.

Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is a sound one, if a sound intention can be quite unrealistic. As drafted, the Bill exempts from the restrictions of possession imposed by Clause 1 weapons which are in the possession of
a member of a club … approved by the Secretary of State … while engaged as such a member in or connection with target practice.
The effect of the Amendment would be that live animals or birds could not be used as targets for the purpose of target practice.
This exemption applies only to those clubs approved by the Secretary of State under Section 4 (8) of the Firearms Act, 1937. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) indicated, the Home Secretary, before approving a club for the purpose of the 1937 Act, takes steps to ensure that the club has a proper and safe range on which shooting can take place and that it is a properly conducted club. If the Bill passes into law, the Home Secretary will also take steps to satisfy himself on these points before approving a club for the purposes of Clause 1.
It goes without saying that all approved clubs must have ranges with proper targets. That means lifeles targets, inanimate targets. A person who fired at a bird even where this was practicable—it would not be practicable normally on a covered range—would not, at the moment that he fired at the bird, be engaged in target practice. Therefore, the Amendment seems to me to be unnnecessary, both in itself and to achieve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. However, in spite of that, if there is such a thing as amending a Bill in order to achieve good will between the promoter of the Bill and those who have certain reservations about it, far be it from me to stand in the way.

Sir B. Janner: I have listened quietly to the very cogent argument advanced by the Minister. He has given an assurance, but, as he knows, that cannot be used in a court of law. However, it may come to the notice of anyone who may come across a case of this description at a later stage. Perhaps this is a case of ex abundanti cautela—from excess of caution. Nevertheless, it is


disturbing that the term "target" can be applied to something which is living. The Minister has given an assurance, and that satisfies me. Whether it will satisfy a court is for some of our colleagues in the legal profession to decide later. Perhaps it will never arise.
I certainly do not agree with the Minister's word "unnecessary." The word "unnecessary" has been frequently upset in being proved to have been wrongly interpreted in courts. Provisions which we have thought to be unnecessary have been shown by courts of appeal to have been very necessary in Acts. Many of us, particularly those of us who deal with consolidating certain Acts, come to the conclusion that certain provisions which appeared to have been unnecessary become necessary because cases have been decided upon the lack of such provisions. However, in view of the assurance given by the Minister that the Home Secretary will not approve a club in any circumstances in which such a thing could happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. B. Harrison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As we have had a very full discussion, I want to say only a little more. I am glad to think that this Bill is generally approved as a first step. I should like to thank not only its supporters, but those hon. Members whose names do not appear on the Bill but who have helped it at various stages because of their continuing interest in this subject. There are others, not in the Chamber, whom I should also like to thank for their co-operation. The gun makers, especially, have given me wholehearted support both in preparing this Measure and in making it workable. The fact that some of them will suffer financially as a result has not led them to oppose the Bill. We have also had consultations with the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the like.
Although this Bill may not go as far as some would wish, our discussions have drawn the attention of many

people to the dangers that can result from air guns and shot guns being in the wrong hands. "Medicine, Science and the Law" reported a case in which an air rifle pellet had punctured the skull and gone through the brain of a child. Ever since I introduced this Measure I have had letters from all over the country giving details of accidents.
I hope that when we see how this Measure is applied we will be able, if necessary, to use it as a basis for further legislation to deal with the very serious casualties caused by air guns and shot guns in the hands of those under certain ages. Once again, I thank all those, both here and in various parts of the country, who have taken an interest in the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

12.54 p.m.

Sir B. Janner: It is a matter of congratulation that this Bill has the approval, I am sure, of every hon. Member now in the House and of those who are not here. Nobody will deny that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has done the community a very considerable service by promoting this Measure, and he has conducted it through its various stages in an exemplary way. His advocacy has shown not only that he has this matter at heart, but that he has considerable skill and ability in getting the desired result. I say that, quite frankly, because the hon. Gentleman has had a little trouble from myself and one or two of my colleagues, and it is difficult for a man who shares the feelings of those who criticise to keep quiet so as to get his Measure through. He has walked along the razor edge of this difficulty very well indeed.
The House is taking a step in the right direction towards avoiding the difficulties arising not from the use but from the abuse of these weapons which can result in such serious though, obviously not intended, damage. It is the abuse of guns that ought to be stopped, and there are very serious reasons for it.
The minds of young people today are being directed to the idea that violence is not really a serious matter. They look at pictures, they read books that one would not consider as particularly desirable reading, they see cartoons, watch television, and all the rest. To them, violence is a matter of no concern at all


because practically from the cradle they are trained to regard it as natural. If someone shoots someone else, what does it matter if he is dead—or if fifty are dead? These youngsters see these incidents on television and the films.
How many parents ever find their children sitting down to a really classical book? Our children want to look at the television. Very many of their games are based on the use of firearms—they pretend to shoot and pretend to be shot dead. They feel that with these weapons they are great big men and that without them they are nobodies. They follow the fashion, and fashion is a great thing not only for the ladies but for youngsters. They want to be in the swim. That being so, this Bill, representing as it does a small step forward, is of considerable importance in curbing an abuse.
I beg the Minister to regard this legislation as only a step towards what is desirable, and always to remember the grave anxiety and concern felt by all thinking people about the serious conditions prevailing among young people possessing these weapons. With the promoter of this Measure, I thank all those who have given their support, and I am glad that I, too, have had the opportunity of assisting in some small way.

1.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald: I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). Hon. Members who have had experience of piloting a Private Member's Bill through the House are aware of the extremely difficult task and the many pitfalls involved. Today we have seen one of these dangers which, I am glad, were able to be surmounted. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) behaved in a statesmanlike way and it is well to remember that, by our procedure, if a division arises at certain stages it may cause great difficulty. However, we have managed to reach almost the end of the story and the hon. Member for Maldon has good reason to think that he has done a very good job.
The Bill will have three very definite results. The first is a direct one, for we

believe and hope that it will actually prevent accidents and disastrous events from occurring. Only yesterday I read in a newspaper how, over a recent period—I do not have the exact details with me—of thirteen fatal accidents, three involved children aged 15 and under. There can be no doubt that these accidents do happen to children and I believe that the Bill will help in a positive way to stop them, apart from helping to deal with the other objectionable features of this matter which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West.
While that is the direct effect, there may be two indirect ones. The first has already been mentioned—that it might result in the encouragement of further efforts on the part of the Farmers' Unions and the Home Office. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out that the time has come for matters of this kind to be examined with a view to having some general control based on the appropriate age limit. I hope and believe that the result of the Bill—which we hope will become law shortly—will not merely be that the file will be put away, with people saying, "We have done it", and then forgeting about it. This could be avoided by the organs of publicity being used to keep the facts alive.
The road to this stage of the Bill has been a hard one to hold. It has taken a long time to get public opinion to believe that anything could be done. A number of people have said, in effect, "We think you are engaged in a very laudable effort, but we know that you will never get anything done." The Bill having come this far shows that something can be done.
The third result, and perhaps another indirect one, is that we may gain the help of those whose assistance is extremely valuable. This may help to bring home to parents and others responsible the terrible dangers of firearms in the hands of children. The importance of doing this is realised by those who have considered this matter in some detail. I have been presented with a detailed account of accidents that have been reported in the Press. These details, resulting from the use of guns of all kinds by children, show how


dreadful these accidents can be. In many cases they arose because parents left loaded guns in their homes where they could be got hold of by children.
I read of a case recently of a loaded 12-bore gun that was left in a house—not a farm house—and a small boy picked it up and said to his sister, "I am going to shoot you." He did. He pulled the trigger and blew her head off. If we can got the help of those who are responsible for publicising these matters—An the Press and over the air—these sort of accidents may be prevented. That parents will now know that children are actually breaking the law if they are under a certain age may have the effect of bringing them up against this problem once and for all, and, perhaps, even of inculcating more restraint on those who are older, just as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West would have liked the Bill to have made clear. As I say, the Bill is a first step and an important one.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I, too, wish to add my good wishes and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on having got his Bill thus far, especially since he had some difficulty on a previous occasion. Unfortunately, for various reasons, I was deprived of making some comments earlier, but I have had the good fortune today of being able to listen to the learned and technical discussion that has taken place regarding the various ages that might seem appropriate.
The Bill is a good one because it is reasonable. There is, after all, a limit to the length Parliament can go to protect people from the results of their own folly. Some people are so foolish that to protect them and the community they would have to be locked up altogether. Obviously, Parliament cannot go as far as that in all cases.
We know of the enormous dangers following on the possession of guns of any kind by the wrong sort of people. My nephew, who is nearly 4, already regards himself as an expert driver of a motor car and of a mechanically propelled lawn mower. He was recently helping me in the garden and he said, out of the blue: "I am going to kill you now." I replied "No, not now, it is

lunch time," He replied, "Never mind, I will get my gun this afternoon." I have a feeling that the provisions of the Bill—which I hope will soon become law—will safeguard me in the future.
Many of us have had tragic experiences either among people related to us, to friends OF to people we have known of the results of the untrained use of firearms. In my short life I have had several of these experiences and I shall relate a few of them to the House. Perhaps they would not have happened if the Bill had been passed at the time. We hear stories of occasions when an air gun pellet has had to be removed from the fleshier part of the anatomy. That is one thing, but I remember being at school with two one-eyed boys, both of whom had lost an eye as the result of a shooting accident. Two others had only parts of their hands as the result of similar events. One other person under 14 had managed to shoot himself through the arm and the leg with a ·22 bullet.
As a school master for a short period between leaving Oxford; and becoming an hon. Member of this House I had the tragic experience of one of my pupils being shot dead by someone of a Similar age. That sort of thing can be pre vented if this Bill is properly applied. What I have been saying so far has been applied to human beings, but there are side effects, and the way that animals can become involved in this has already been emphasised. I do not wish to go into that subject at any length but I have just received from one of my hon. Friends a letter from the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist Society. The emblem heading their note-paper, on which are words in support of the Bill, is a very beautiful butterfly. I mention this because I have even heard that these fare beauties have been shot at by people using weapons which will be prohibited or controlled by the Bill.
As I say, I welcome the Bill. No one wants, by this or any other Measure, to restrict or prohibit the proper use of firearms or air weapons in country pursuits by people who are properly trained in their use. Parliament should never assume the responsibility or attempt to stop the legitimate use of even dangerous weapons, and I think the Bill strikes the right balance between over-control and


proper control and, for that reason, I welcome it.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), I start by respectfully congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on his conduct of the Bill and his skill in bringing it thus far. All the indications are that the House is very shortly to come to a decision without opposition.
I think we shall mislead ourselves if we assume that the Bill, excellent start though it be, will of itself make a tremendous change in either the outlook of some of the young people concerned or, alas, in the number of accidents. If I have any divergence from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in his speech a few minutes ago, it is that I feel that he and others are in danger of exaggerating the attitude of mind of young people when it comes to things like revolvers and playing games involving weapons of various kinds. I frankly say that I do not think that boys, at least, have changed very much in this respect. I do not think that they are any worse. Indeed, if anything, they might be a little better than they were years ago. I remember that my own favourite reading, of which I had an extensive library which I still possess and sometimes dip into with great pleasure, was stories of Robin Hood. While I suppose that there was a certain moral value in the fact that the stories told of men distributing the ill-gotten gains of the rich and giving them to the poor—

Mr. Robert Cooke: Certainly not.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend must note the adjective I used. I spoke of "ill-gotten" gains. Although there was, perhaps, some moral there, in fact it was a continuous tale of violence, and, while in those days the weapons were bows and arrows, I do not think that the principle was any different. I feel that boys were no different years ago, and I think we might do grave harm if there went out from the House of Commons the idea that young people today do nothing but indulge in vicious games and pastimes. I honestly do not believe that this is true.
Nevertheless, I am bewildered that for so long Parliament has thought it right to impose so few restrictions on the carrying of air guns, for instance, by very young people. I had my first air rifle, under very close supervision, be it said, at the age of six. I well recall securing by a fluke a direct hit on the extreme tip of a crocodile's snout in India. The creature thereupon submerged with great rapidity, and the incident gave me a wholly undeserved reputation with my father's retainers for being a very fine shot. It was something which one or two of them remembered for many years. However, I still do not feel that it was proper for me to have been entrusted, even under very close supervision, with a weapon of that sort, even in the practically uninhabited area where I was living at the time.
I warmly welcome the restriction which I trust that Parliament as a whole will very soon impose when the Bill becomes an Act. I do not believe that any reasonable parent will want to have a child under the age of 14 in unrestricted possession of an air gun or air weapon. To that extent, one may fairly say that this provision is overdue and is very much to be welcomed.
Equally, we ought to register the fact that there is, as has been stressed already, deep public concern about one matter which the Bill will not touch. I refer to the activities of roving gangs—as has been said before and should be emphasised again, they are a minute number, a tiny percentage of our young people—causing deep perturbation in country areas surrounding our towns, going about and leaving behind them a trail of devastation and the maiming of animals and birds. This is quite intolerable in a civilised society, and I believe that the country generally expects Parliament to do something additional about it before long. I am well aware of the general provisions of the law relating to this type of conduct which are outside the Bill now before us, but it seems clear that there is a gap in our law here through which certain people are successfully slipping. Public opinion has become aroused, as the postbags of hon. Members on both sides, I am sure, reveal. I hope that we shall return to this subject soon, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) suggested.
A great deal of our discussion today has centred upon air guns, and it seems to me that we are in danger of failing to direct sufficient attention upon what the Bill will provide by Clause 2, which represents a fairly substantial change in the law regarding shot guns. I think that it is a sensible way of drafting the enactment in this respect, to provide that persons under 15 should possess an assembled shot gun only while under supervision. This is the right way to put the thing in motion.
The legitimate, controlled and skilled use of the shot gun is a perfectly proper part of life in the countryside. It is the skilled use of it which should be emphasised. I was lucky enough to start, under skilled tuition, at an earlier age than 15, and I remember well from my younger days that I was taught that to wound and then not to ensure the speedy killing of a bird or animal, even of vermin, was a heinous crime. So it is. It is the skilled use of such a weapon which is of the greatest importance, and this, of course, implies careful supervision. This is why I think that the Bill as drafted approaches the matter in the right way.
At the same time, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, was right to remind us that the House should be anxious not to entwine younger people in restrictions so that we appear to be trying, with a puritanical spirit, to control their every action and legitimate recreation. We have here, as we have so often, a balance of argument. This was well exemplified in Committee. By limiting what we are doing in regard to shot guns in Clause 2, we are, I think, going about it the right way.
For those reasons, in addition to the others which have been powerfully adduced during our debates, I very much welcome the Bill and wish to speed it on its way to an unopposed Third Reading.

1.19 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I welcome the Bill and give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) for all the work he has done, and I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for helping us today in no mean way in getting the Bill through.
There is grave anxiety throughout the country today about the misuse of firearms and, particularly in the urban districts, of air guns. The Bill will do something to relieve public anxiety on this score. I was a little worried when my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said that he thought that we must strike a balance between people learning to use firearms and a measure of restriction. If people are to learn to use these weapons, I should have thought that, nowadays, the age of sixteen would not be unreasonable as a limit to impose even in the country areas. A shot gun or air gun is, let us face it, a dangerous weapon and it is not unfair that we should impose an age of about 16 before that weapon is used, even under supervision.
I, too, consider that one of the great advantages of this Measure is that it will draw the attention of the public to that unfortunate thing called parental control and supervision, in all fields, which in this day and age is rapidly receding into the background. It is parental responsibility which should not necessitate the passing of an Act of Parliament of this kind. Unfortunately, it is lacking, and it is for Parliament to impose certain restrictions on the use of these weapons.
Any legislation on this subject is difficult, because the conditions under which these weapons are used in the town and in the country are entirely different. In the town, there is no necessity for them except on an authorised range under proper supervision. When Parliament enacts a larger Measure, as it will be obliged to do, it will find it extremely difficult to overcome this real and practical difficulty.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that the Government are fully cognisant of the feeling of the House that this is merely a first beginning in this avenue of legislation, including general parental responsibility, and that they will not regard it as closing the file and forget all about it. I hope that in the future we may go just that one stage further and impose a system of licences which includes not only firearms, but air guns, so that there can be reasonable and proper supervision. By that means, a person using the firearm or air gun, and not merely the purchaser of the weapon,


would have to be in possession of a licence.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will look at this matter carefully with the possibility of introducing some form of comprehensive legislation to cover those aspects which it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon to cover in an excellent Private Member's Bill.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: Before the House parts with the Bill on Third Reading, I should like cordially to congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on the skill and perseverance with which he has pursued the subject. I know that he has not always regarded me as one of the most helpful of his critics, but this is an opportunity which we should all take of praising him for the skill with which he has pursued his objective.
As the hon. Member knows, the Bill that was introduced last year was, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, unnecessarily cluttered up with Clauses about poaching and other matters which some of us considered objectionable and irrelevant to the subject. There has, however, never been doubt in any part of the House about the merits of dealing with this evil, which has been growing so much in recent years, arising from these lethal weapons being in the hands of very young children.
In some ways, it is both a reflection on our administration and, at the same time, a tribute to the zeal of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Maldon, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that private Members' time is used so profitably to stimulate and encourage efforts by the Home Office to do something—perhaps not as much as we would all hope, but at least something—both to stem the tide of juvenile delinquency and malicious damage by juveniles and also to direct public opinion to the evils which result from lack of adequate parental control over children.
We all recognise the natural instincts of young persons to indulge their boyish spirits. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has regaled us with his experiences as a youth in

the jungles of India. We have to remember that conditions in this small island, most of which is either fully or semi-urbanised, are very different from the jungle conditions of India. Therefore, the legislation required is very different.
I claim to be as libertarian as anybody in outlook, but I do not regard a Bill of this kind, which we hope will deprive young children of access to shot guns and air guns, as being in any sense anti-libertarian. We regard it as essential to prevent the growing tide of casualties and the rising toll of malicious injury to property. It is mounting year by year. We hope that the efforts of the hon. Member for Maldon, his success in carrying the Bill into law and the publicity which these debates are receiving will do something to improve our social conditions in this respect.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Renton: Although my attitude on behalf of the Government has been one of neutrality and although the Bill has yet to go through another place, I do not think that I would be exceeding my duty if I took note of the fact that the Bill has got very far in this House—obviously it will pass through the House—and congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) without whose efforts the Bill would not have got so far. I know how hard he has striven and for so long to achieve the Bill. It may not go as far as he would have wished in the first place, but it represents a reasonable compromise based on the decisions of the House.
It is one thing to pass a law which creates new offences, because that is what the Bill does; it is another thing to enforce it. I can, however, offer this word of encouragement to the House, that there is not the slightest doubt but that the police forces will be glad, when necessary, to take advantage of the Bill.
It will not be an easy Bill to enforce. A great deal will depend upon the cooperation of parents. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said what he did about parental responsibility in this matter. Without an acute sense of parental responsibility, the Bill could become a dead letter. It is only fair to remind parents without frightening them that


their own responsibilities will, under the law, indirectly be increased if the Bill becomes a statute. Under other provisions of the law passed many years ago, parents can be brought before a court for the misdeeds of their children, and this Bill could increase the likelihood of that happening.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE FEDERATIONS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

1.31 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When wise and eminently practical legislation comes before the House, it invariably receives a speedy, harmonious and unopposed welcome. I think that the absence of amendment to this Bill signifies that it falls within that category and that it has the warm support of all the bodies intimately and primarily concerned with this matter, namely, the Home Office, the Scottish Office, the police federations and the local authorities.
The Bill is designed to simplify and bring up to date the law relating to the constitution and proceedings of the police federations. I am sure that its provisions will cement the harmonious relationship which has existed for so long between members of the police forces and the authorities, and that it will lead to a great deal of satisfaction. I trust that the Bill will receive the House's blessing and that it will emerge unassailed and uncriticised.

1.33 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) on introducing his Bill, which affects an important section of the community, and I hope that it will soon be on the Statute Book.
I speak on this Bill because I had a considerable experience with the police forces in my early days in practice. Anything done to help the men in the police forces who perform an extremely difficult and very useful task in our society should be encouraged. The House should congratulate my hon. Friend for seeking to bring up to date and simplify the procedure with which the Bill deals. I am sure that the police forces of the country will be grateful to him, and it is only proper that we in the House should thank him for having thought of this desirable Measure and for having introduced it.

1.34 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I wish to add my tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) for introducing this very small but important Measure which affects members of the community to whom we all owe a debt. It is a small Measure, but it has the effect, not only of showing them our appreciation, but of helping them in a practical way.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): Lest silence should indicate dissent, may I add my tribute, not only to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), but also to the many police officers whom the Bill will benefit.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAW REFORM (DAMAGES AND SOLATIUM) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill also is a small Measure. It has, however, the effect of removing an anomaly in Scottish law which came to my notice as a result of a case in my constituency and which was given wider attention by the Tenth Report of the Scottish Law Reform Committee.
I wish to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and hon. Members, particularly the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), for their support and assistance during the Bill's earlier stages.

1.36 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: We seem to be throwing many congratulations around the House today. It is rather pleasant to be here at a time like this. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on having introduced the Bill. It will do away with an injustice which sometimes had very grave consequences for some women in Scotland. Because it was thought that something should be done about this matter, the Bill had strong support from both sides in Committee. I hope that when it goes to another place it will go through as quickly and easily as it has done in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DECIMAL COINAGE BILL

1.37 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased that today the House has been debating non-party matters. This also is a non-party matter. From my researches into this subject, I believe that this is the first debate which the House of Commons has had on this subject for over 100 years. Tribute should be paid to the late Mont Follick, who tried so hard and for so long to have it fully debated but who never quite succeeded. He had Adjournment debates, such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) attempted to have earlier this Session but which was ruled out of order by the Chair because the matter involved legislation.
Two years ago, when I first took an interest in this subject, I was lucky enough to get a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. Unfortunately, I was second on the list and I was not able to make the speech which I wished to make. I have certainly learned a great deal about the procedure of the House and about decimal coinage since that day. In the last two years, the public's outlook and, indeed, the Government's outlook on decimal coinage have changed enormously. Perhaps typical of the British way of going about things is the fact that we have done it gently without spilling any blood. Russia got decimal coinage at the time of her revolution. I am sure that we do not want such a thing as that in order to have decimal coinage here.
Out of 231 currencies in use in the world today, 203 are decimal currencies. Since this subject received so much publicity, a great deal has been said in the newspapers and in discussions about other types of coinage systems which we might adopt. A great body of opinion supports a duodecimal system. Professor A. C. Aitken has become quite prominent in this sphere, and he has sent me many letters on this subject. However, I cannot agree with him that a duodecimal system would be helpful. We should be the only country to have such a system. I do not think that the


public would ever take to a system under which we had to invent two new figures. I am not a sufficiently good mathematician to be able to deal in duodecimals, although I believe that some professions in our community do so.
When I first approached this subject I told the older of my two small sons about it and he said, "Hooray, if it will save me time in arithmetic". That is one of the advantages to be gained from the use of decimals. The saving of teaching time in mathematics alone for children under 11 would be between 5 and 10 per cent., while for 11-year-olds it would be 2 per cent. of total teaching time. A few weeks ago the headmaster of a school in my constituency said that if he could drop the teaching of £ s. d. and go straight to decimals he could start the teaching of a second language. With the Common Market negotiations and the present shape of the world that would be very useful. He said that he could start the teaching of that second language for 7 or 8-year-olds. I tremble to think of what my small boy might think about that.
I am glad to see that the Economic Secretary has a copy of the most useful Joint Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Since reading this report, I have tested some of the calculations and find that the figure of a saving of 30 per cent. in time in the normal office calculations is completely accurate and that of a 50 per cent. reduction in errors in similar problems in offices very accurate.
The amount of arithmetic which has to be used in our antiquated system of money is surprising. If there is a simple addition involving five sums of money, one has to start in the halfpenny column and add up all the halfpennies and then divide by two; one then adds up all the pence in tens and units and divides by twelve; then one adds up all the shillings in tens and units and divides by twenty; and finally one arrives at the main unit.
The complication of that is incredible, and we are able to do it only because we are taught how at a very youthful age. The system is awkward and cumbersome. Its awkwardness was brought home to me a few weeks ago when I

was eating in a London restaurant. I saw four American ladies—they looked like school teachers on a round-the-world trip—whose bill came to £5 3s. 9d. Hon. Members can imagine someone with a lifelong experience of only decimal coinage trying to divide up that sort of sum.
I think that I should tell the House how far the campaign for decimal coinage has gone. On 19th December, last year, the Chancellor made a statement when he said:
I can promise a quick decision.
In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, he said:
… the Committee is not being asked to consider the question of 'whether', but … 'how'. I can say quite frankly that, should its recommendations, or the results of its investigations, appear to present very grave financial and other difficulties, the Government would have to reconsider the question of 'whether'; but the Committee is being asked to consider not 'whether', but methods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1961; Vol. 651, c. 1135–36.]
That is quite an advance. The Halsbury Committee was set up to find out how much a decimal system would cost and what system should be used. Because the Government have decided to have a decimal coinage, if the cost is right—the House cannot today decide how much the cost will be—the debate should swing on what to call the coins which would be created by a new system and the choice of system.
Personally, I find that the names of these things do not worry me very much so long as the money in my pocket is spendable; in other words, so long as I can exchange my efforts for the goods and services I want, I am concerned only with whether the arithmetic involved is easy enough to be of great use to the community.

Mr. Peter Emery: It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) to say that the names of these coins do not worry him very much, but he must be cognisant of the fact that many people are concerned about the names of the money with which they have grown up and which they associate with part of British history and British prestige. Would he not say that there is a great deal more in the naming of the new units of money than he has suggested?

Mr. Proudfoot: Indeed I would, but, as I have tried carefully to explain, my personal attitude is to ask, "What is in a name?" In the last few months I have heard names like royals, nobles, sovereigns and even "Selwyns" bandied about as possible names for the units.
What has surprised me is that none of the feature editors of our more popular daily newspapers has run a competition about what to call the new coins, offering half a dozen of the latest model automobiles as prizes. The Daily Express ran a competition when television began about what the new medium should be called—Video, T.V., or television. Public usage, of course, decided the issue in the end. I am sure that my hon. Friend, the Member for Reading (Mr. Emery) will agree that whatever the House decides to call the coins, the public will have a nickname. He has only to cast his mind over "quid" for £, "tanner" for sixpence and "diddler" for threepenny-piece.
Strangely enough, to judge from the many letters which I have had about various systems, letters running into several hundreds, I have found that this subject appears to be the preserve of retired brigadiers. They seem to spend a high proportion of their time working out systems of decimal coinage and names for them.
Today we have to consider the conditions which a system of decimal coinage must fulfil. I acknowledge that there is a mystique of the symbol £ which means so much in the world's currencies. The great barrier to a decimal system is that to change the value of the £ might be regarded by foreigners as devaluation and not just a change of system. But I am sure that that barrier would be at its strongest in the Treasury itself. I am sure that if the Treasury were worried by the fear that to change to a system of decimal coinage would be regarded as devaluation, the Government would not have their present attitude. I think that these fears can be exaggerated, especially in a world where Africa has changed or is changing and India, New Zealand and Australia are having reports on or are considering changing over to decimal coinage. I am sure that those changes would lighten any possible blow in that respect.
While referring to this symbol of the £, I should refer to at least two letters which I have had from residents in Britain which were concerned with the fear of Americanisation and the use of cents and dollars instead of £ s. d. One of the letters was from a Mr. Vencatarahmen, which is an Indian name, and the other gentleman had a Chinese name which I cannot remember although I can assure the House that it was not Chou En-lai. They were worried about losing the £ sterling!
A few months ago I was in Germany at a convention considering voluntary chains in the food business. The day after the convention I found myself among some British wholesalers at a Press conference and I was startled when, half way through that Press conference, the assembled German journalists suddenly said that I was interested in decimal coinage. Lo and behold! much to my surprise, I found that the rest of the conference was devoted to the nature of such a decimal coinage. I spoke of this to someone who knows Europe well and who said that I should not be astounded at this turn of events because, although as an Englishman I would not appreciate it, the coinage barrier was probably a greater mental barrier between Europe and Britain than the physical barrier of the English Channel. Until those German journalists turned on me like that, I had not appreciated what a barrier our coinage was.
Associatability of values is part of the crux of the matter when one considers the conditions which a system must fulfil. It is important that the public should be able easily to associate the new with the old coins, or people would otherwise feel that they were being robbed when they went into a retailer's store. Such a feeling would make the change-over more difficult. Associatability must also recognise that in business and government there have to be comparisons with previous figures and statistics so that performance may be judged. When I speak on this subject I always feel the need for a blackboard, because it is an awkward subject to discuss in the House. It may be much easier in Committee when one can answer each point as it arises.
When one discusses what system is to be adopted, one must first decide whether to start at the top level, with the £, and work downwards, or at the bottom with the halfpenny and build up. It is here that the debate becomes most interesting. If we take the £, we will obviously have to split it into units of hundreds or thousands, and if we take the halfpenny we will obviously have to build upwards in hundreds.
This decision also involves the decision on having a two-point or three-point system, in other words, two or three places to the right of the decimal point. In discussing this one must consider the usefulness of the halfpenny. When the Chamber of Commerce report was published, the farthing was still legal tender, but now, thank goodness, it has gone. The report points out that the present halfpenny is worth less than a farthing of fifty years ago and we have to ask whether in any system today it is necessary to have a coin as small as a halfpenny.
A few weeks ago, I took stock in one of my stores and was interested to discover that halfpennies in my stock accounted for only 1 per cent. of total stock. The halfpenny could vanish without a great deal of change to the cost of living and to the cost of retail goods in stores because, while one would gain on some commodities, one would lose on others. The report said that one of the reasons for the use of halfpennies was that daily newspapers cost 2½d., but today they cost 3d. The need for the halfpenny can be over-emphasised. As hon. Members know, banks and accounting firms do not recognise them in their calculations and I think that we can probably get along quite happily without them.
Once it is decided that the £ must be kept I think that I can explain this system better by using the word cent, which will only be a term for use in this discussion, to show that we have a reduction of the £ into a hundred parts and if I use the word mil., that means a thousandth part. I am frightened of using the word cent or dollar during the debate because I feel that the public may have a distaste of the use of these words in connection with their currency.
If we take the £ and divide it by one hundred, our minimum unit would be

2·4d. or about 2½d. This is too great a unit for smaller transactions, such as bus fares and the hundred and one things still purchasable below the cost of 2½d.
We should then be forced for retail transactions to go into quarter, half and three-quarter cents, as it were, to enable smaller purchases to be made. This is the reason why this system should not be adopted. Our business machines in offices could ignore the quarter, half, and three-quarter cents but not the whole cent, which would be 2·4d. When we come to the cash registers there would have to be a different attitude. We should have to retain the quarter, half and three-quarter cent on cash registers for retail transactions, and for this reason it would make it very difficult to adopt it. Incidentally, the new half cent in this respect would be equal to l·2d., a difference of 20 per cent., but as we go higher the difference vanishes. It would make virtually no difference to retail prices and the cost of living.
The £ mil. system would mean that we would take the £ and split it into 1,000 parts. If we did that the smallest unit that we could have would be less than 4 per cent. of yesterday's farthing, which in my opinion would be too small. We should have to do it with coins of 5 mils which again would be the equivalent of l·2d.
This would mean a three-point system. In other words, there would be three decimal places to the right of the main unit. This is not impossible. It is done in Italy and Egypt, but I believe that the two-point system would be more desirable. It would give greater capacity for our accounting machines and it is the more normal system throughout the rest of the world. Adding up these figures in small retail transactions, of which there are millions every day, would be awkward for the housewife to calculate in these coins. The shilling or the medium unit would vanish completely in this respect.
There is also the fact that accountants and bankers could not use the last point, as it were. If they did so, and they would be forced to, it would need an unnecessary amount of accuracy to the third decimal place. They would be back to working with farthings. This would be both awkward and unnecessary.
The next system which should be considered and rejected is the shilling decime—that is one-tenth of a shilling. It would mean making the shilling the biggest unit, and dividing by ten. If this were done, it would be known that a half decime would come in at a value of l·2d.
This would cut down the value of business machines for a different reason. In other words, a person might find himself buying a Triumph Herald for 14,000 shillings, as it were. When one looks at the Deutschmark or the Spanish peseta one can get an idea of the retail prices in the stores. They look enormous, and this, again, is an unnecessary complication.
When tackling this business of decimalising our coinage we have to remember that our £ is still the biggest unit of currency in the world. This has its drawbacks. In this respect, we have had almost enough inflation, but if the £ had been worth less we could have decimalised our currency much more easily.
The other system that one must consider is that of starting at the smallest unit and building upwards. It would mean taking the penny and building up to 100d. or 8s. 4d. which would be the main unit. This would have the great advantage that the smaller articles would have no alterations made in their price. We would still be able to buy a packet of chewing gum for 2d. But when we got to the main unit there would be confusion in people's minds. Also, in regard to the associatability of values, the working out of old statistics for comparison purposes would be that much more difficult than preserving the £, or adopting any other system.
The other thing that we could do would be to use the ½d. as the main unit, build up to the 4s. 2d. unit and give it a new name. I believe that the system which is most desirable should be called a 10s. cent system. In the Bill, I have called the main unit a new £. I admit that I cribbed this from the introduction by the French of the new franc. If we call it a new £, eventually we will get back to the title of the £, and in this way today's £ will be worth two new £s. It has the advantage of being an easy ratio for comparison pur

poses. It would lead to a new penny of 1·2 pence, and the difference at the smaller amounts would be 20 per cent., but as soon as we got above 2½d. the greatest variance in value would be 5 per cent.
Since the Chancellor made his announcement, many trade organisations, representing accountants, sales managers, etc., and their associations, have decided that if we are to have decimal coinage this would be the system which would suit them best. If this system were adopted, everyone's bank balance would double overnight. I must frankly admit that at the same time my overdraft would be doubled, but I think that the public would rapidly learn to use this new system of coinage. Indeed, in India, with 80 per cent. illiteracy, we see them moving over rapidly and easily to decimal coinage. South Africa provides much the same sort of picture and in the last two years I have collected an enormous amount of material on this subject. It has been sent to me from various parts of the world.
In South Africa a broadsheet such as the one I have here was published in two languages at Government expense and distributed to everyone to let them know how the new system would work. The people who sell cash registers and accounting machines produced simple well-illustrated booklets to demonstrate how the arithmetic of the new system would affect retailers, and so on, and it is the retailers and bus conductors of this country who would virtually take on the job of teaching the public how to use the new coinage.
It must be admitted that it would take perhaps two or three years to change over to the new system. In other words, we would have two kinds of currency being used at the same time, just as we have the old and new £ notes in circulation together. The old £ notes are now beginning to vanish, and eventually the old coins would vanish.
It would not be difficult to operate the two coinages until the old one disappeared. I have talked to people who operate cash registers in Bermuda. They deal with three kinds of currency. They accept Canadian dollars, American dollars, and English money. The cashiers there are able to deal with the different coinages, and so are the public.
One of the smaller thrills in going on a Continental holiday is starting to use a new type of coin. Whenever I go to a country with a decimal coinage system, I do not experience any great difficulty in doing the arithmetic necessary to convert my money. In fact, one has only to stay in another country for about a month, to find on returning home that one starts working out the cost of the goods in the currency of the country which one has just left.
One retailer in my town recently adopted dual pricing of his goods. He put the two prices on the goods in his windows—the sterling price, and its equivalent in decimal coinage. It was a kind of gimmick and people went to his shop to see how the system would work.
The House will have noticed that this Bill is based on a South African Bill of a similar nature. I think that the setting up of a decimalisation board is the most obvious and practical way of going about dealing with this problem. This is referred to in the Bill, and I imagine that this is a "must" if we are eventually to achieve decimal coinage. Another Clause also refers to compensation, and I admit that it would be the responsibility of the community to compensate people who own adding machines and cash registers and were put to some expense to change over to the new system. From talks that I have had with people who sell cash registers, I learn that it would be possible to convert registers up to fifteen years' old. No difficulty has been experienced in South Africa in converting these machines.
Cash registers are, of course, not the only machines that would have to be altered, and perhaps I might give the House a list of the machines that would need to be adapted. Cash registers—and the number is surprisingly low—390,000; adding machines—225,000; calculating machines—65,000; accounting machines—85,000; franking machines—40,000; price computing scales—800,000; petrol pumps—25,000; coin operated vending machines—150,000; telephone kiosks—150,000; G.P.O. stamp machines—22,000; and 13,500 taxi-meters. This report was issued before parking meters were introduced, so they too would have to be added to the list.
It is estimated that the cost of altering those machines would be about £128 million, but in case that figure staggers the House, the report points out that savings to the community would amount to £44 million a year. Of course nobody, no matter how enthusiastic about this, could claim that five years after decimalisation we should still be saving £44 million a year, but the increase in efficiency would obviously be there ad infinitum.
This is merely a business decision, and I do not think that it ought to be rated higher than that. It is a business decision that ought to be taken in the interests of efficiency. When one considers it, one realises that decimal coinage would affect the community with extraordinary rapidity. Indeed, I think that its effect would be felt more rapidly even than the advent of war. In the wilder parts of Yorkshire the only significance of the commencement of the war was that the price of ham jumped extraordinarily high. Overnight everybody would realise that something had happened in the community if the change that I am proposing were brought about. I think that we are on the threshold of great changes. If we can break through and discard some of the more useless and cumbersome traditions and accept the Bill, it will enable us to condition ourselves to what lies ahead.

2.8 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), on introducing this Measure and on the simple way in which he has managed to present what must necessarily be a complicated and technical Bill.
The important point is that we are considering whether some method should be utilised now to bring ourselves into line with general opinion in the world, that the decimal system should be used universally. Decimal coinage, of course, is not used in every part of the world, but in those countries where it is used it is regarded as being extremely effective and simple. It does not require the calculations that not only disturb the minds of our youngsters who have to learn complicated tables and variations of those tables but cause considerable difficulties in accounting in all aspects of industrial and general life.
When I travel abroad I sometimes wonder why this country has remained for so long in its present confused state of calculation. It only requires the examination of a set of tables and a glance at the bemused look that comes upon the face of the visitor who is trying to work out here the value of various articles in his own coinage—apart altogether from the difficulty which teachers experience when trying to drive into the heads of our youngsters what it is all about—to realise that our present system is untidy, if nothing else.
To anyone coming here from a country which uses the decimal system our system is ununderstandable. Our whole lives would be made a little more pleasant if we did not have to delve into the fractions and calculations that have to be made in dealing with the most ordinary incidents. Ultimately, much expense would be saved if we used a decimal coinage, and employed decimals in other measurements. Calculating machines would be very much simpler. At present even the housewife has difficulty in making calculations when she is shopping. The position would be considerably eased and we should become more reasonable human beings if we used the decimal system.
I know of no system of calculation which is more easily understandable and easier to use than the decimal system. It so happens that we are ten fingered. This is the origin of the decimal system, as it is of our numbers—Roman figures, up to the use of the upright five and the upside down five to give the figure ten which very few people realise represents the farthest extent to which digits can take us—and it has worked in such a way as to create a very simple form of calculation. Our numbers are arranged in tens—we do not seem to be able to get beyond ten in our basic figures—but the strange thing is that when we deal with coinage, weights and measures, we work in twelves and other various artificial multiples, which have no basis. Perhaps there is a kind of tradition attached to them, and we have become used to them.
The third "R" would be very much easier to learn for everybody, including hon. Members, if we had a decimal system. The real question is: would

it be too big a step to take to change to a decimal system? It certainly would be a big step. The Conservative Government dislike change. They must do, or they would stop using the word "Conservative", and would use the word "Progressive" or "Labour". They say, "Let things remain as they are, and make the best of them". That has been all very well up to now, but I am sure that in their hearts they know that the position is ridiculous. When we make calculations concerning foreign exchange we begin messing things up and making mistakes. The Government make mistakes. I am told that even the Treasury occasionally makes mistakes. I am sure that it is not beyond the highly qualified and eminently skilful people in the Treasury to make an occasional mistake in all these fractional calculations.
It would be much easier for the machines of the electronic age. They would be much more simply constructed if they had to deal only with tens.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton) indicated dissent.

Sir B. Janner: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) disagrees. I should have thought that even an electronic brain would find it easier to deal with decimals than with our present fractions.

The question is, what is the best way to change? I hope that we shall hear that from the Minister. Is the system which the hon. Member for Cleveland proposes the one that we should adopt, or has the ingenuity of the Minister's Department devised a better one? Having looked through the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that the system laid down in it is as good as any, but I am not an authority on the matter. I have not studied it as deeply as has the hon. Member for Cleveland. He has put forward a reasonable suggestion. We cannot force this kind of thing upon a community which has been accustomed for so many years to a different system, and the hon. Member therefore suggests that there should be an interim arrangement to enable the change-over to take place by easy stages.

Not that it will be all that easy; there is bound to be a certain amount of confusion in changing to a new system,


especially on the part of those who cannot work it out, or are too tired or too lazy to do so, or simply do not want to do so. We all know that the human mind often does not want to be bothered. That is what is wrong with the Conservative Government. That is why they now find themselves in an awful mess. But I do not want to upset the chances of the hon. Member's Bill by entering into political controversies.

While the switch-over takes place, there is bound to be some difficulty. As the hon. Member says, we must therefore have two systems running at the same time, for a certain period. That will not be a happy position, but in this age of curiosity it might even turn out that people will like dabbling with two kinds of money. They may find that it creates a little spice in life. What we want to know from the Minister is whether it will be the right kind of spice.

The important thing is that we should realise that we are behind the times. We are living in changing times. I do not know what will happen and I do not want to couple this subject with any political argument about the Common Market, but obviously if we enter the Common Market we shall have to do something about it and people' will have to think in these terms. We are a stolid people. I have had complaints made to me. Merchants abroad have said, "If you want trade and you send out catalogues, why don't you send them out in the language of the people with whom you want to do business and give your prices in terms of their coinage?" Many business houses do not do this. If it were done it would bring us closer towards explaining to people abroad what we want by way of trade. If our customers abroad have to work out prices in twelfths they will sometimes go mad. They want something which is easy to grasp.

I want the Minister to say today that he agrees that an alteration is necessary. Intelligent and capable as he is, I am sure that he will say what is in his mind. I hope that he will say that the present position is silly and that whilst we are all happy to remain in our ignorance, which may be bliss, and to carry on as we are, we know that it would be wise

to introduce a change and make the decimal system our system.

I should also like the Minister to say something else. I appreciate that it is difficult to incorporate in a Private Member's Bill provisions which define the machinery of a complicated issue of this sort, but the hon. Member for Cleveland is to be congratulated on having put forward his suggestion. It may well be that the Treasury will think that it is the Tight suggestion. If not, I ask the Minister to compliment his hon. Friend, as no doubt he will do, and I ask him to say that it is the considered opinion of the Government that the time has come when we should make a change.

I also ask the Minister to say that there is no real merit, apart from a desire for laissez faire, in remaining attached to a system which is arbitrary and artificial and has no logic in it. Perhaps this system arose from a desire to be different. If so, it is an undesirable desire. If the Bill represents substantially what the Minister feels is the right method to pursue, he should allow it to be read a Second time so that it can be amended if necessary in Committee, If, on the other hand, he is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are not the right ones he should at least say that this Measure is an inducement and incentive to the Government to introduce very soon a Measure which will incorporate what they think to be the correct method. We can then move Amendments in Committee on that Bill on the basis of the proposals in this Bill if we desire to do so.

If the Minister can find it in his heart and mind to do so, I should prefer that he should say that the Bill in its framework is sufficiently important and adaptable to go to Committee. I hope that he will not ask why a subject of this importance should be left to a Private Member's Bill. Even a private Member sometimes has the ingenuity and knowledge that the sum total of a Department may display. We private Members may be presumptuous in believing that, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Cleveland thinks that his Measure is the correct way of dealing with this problem. I hope that the Minister will not only say these things which I have asked him to say but will put them into effect in a practical way.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am not in favour of change for the sake of change, but I think it essential that when there is an obvious need for a radical change, any Government ought to have the strength and the courage to take that action and to take it briskly and take the lead in any alterations that might be considered essential. I believe that this Bill is that kind of change and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) on bringing the Measure before the House. His perseverance on decimal coinage, which I have done my best to support, has been admirable. The fact that in some way or another, without coming up in the Ballot and without obtaining permission under the Ten Minutes Rule, he has been able to have a Second Reading debate on this Bill shows considerable ingenuity. The obviously learned manner in which he presented the Bill does credit to his researches and to his knowledge of the subject.
Whilst I am congratulating my hon. Friend, I am sure that all hon. Members will join with me in another matter. It is not often that a back bencher can make that statement with confidence, but I am sure that I can do so today in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) on appearing at the Dispatch Box. I believe that this is the first time and I hope that we shall see him there on many more occasions. I am particularly pleased because I think that he represents some of the younger thought in his party which, as one of the younger Members myself, I like to see reaching fruition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome this provision and lend the support of his party to it. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who makes very helpful speeches in this House, made a contribution today which was extremely good and which I am certain will be considered carefully by those who study this problem.
There are certain aspects relating to the Bill which I should like to consider. The historical background must be borne in mind. We must think of the advantages or disadvantages of a change to decimal coinage in relation to industry and commerce, internal and inter

national finance and education. We must think what would be the cost of the change and who would bear it; how long the change would take to achieve; how much dislocation would be involved and which system of decimalisation should be adopted. After giving the matter careful thought, I believe it to be impossible to separate the decision in principle from the system which we adopt. The integration between the two is so important that they must go together. Secondly—I do not think that this problem has been mentioned—there is no need, in my view, to link a change to decimalisation with a change to the metric system. That is a different problem and cannot be used in arguments against a change to decimalisation.
Historically, the £ sterling has been the basis of the strength of British finance abroad. It has helped to create stability and has promoted investment. Its use as an international currency in transactions between third and fourth parties with no interests in or dealings with "-his country has been part of the strength which we associate with sterling and sterling is the £. Such arguments as these are difficult to substantiate with facts, but I believe that, emotionally, there is in international finance a great feeling towards the concept of the £ sterling. I believe, further, that this Bill need do nothing to destroy that concept or undermine the strength of sterling.
It is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom serious consideration has been given to a change towards the decimal system on occasions for over 150 years. The florin was minted in 1850 in order that a change could be made to decimal coinage but now, in 1962, we do not seem to be much forrader. A number of Royal Commissions have considered the matter and most have recommended a change. The last reported in 1918. After that the matter seemed to die, nothing much more being heard of it until the Federation of British Industries conducted a survey on the attitude of British industry in 1951. This was followed, eight years later, by the British Association for the Advancement of Science combining with industry, in the form of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, in setting up a joint committee to produce what I believe is the finest report ever


compiled on the problem of decimalisation and the aspects of decimal coinage.
The reaction of industry is a matter of interest. With a few exceptions the idea of a change has received increasing support. In my view, the British Government have been moving towards a change, but much too slowly. In May, 1960, in another place, when considering the force of recommendations for a change to decimal coinage, a Minister said:
On the other hand, there are evident objections, in which Her Majesty's Government see great force, to giving up the pound as the main unit of currency, bearing in mind the rôle which it has for long played in international trade. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 31st May, 1960; Vol. 224, c. 107.]
I accept the latter point but, as I have made clear, I do not accept the former.
I wish now to deal with some of the objections to a change. What are the arguments against decimalisation? Perhaps the first is that there is no general or popular demand for such change. People are happy with things the way they are. The present system works well for us and has stood up to centuries of use. Those are statements of fact. But because that is so it does not mean that the public is against a change. So long as it were done in a simple manner and with force and fairness, I think that the public would be willing and happy to adopt what, in my view, would be a more simple money system. Often people are happy in their ignorance, and I do not believe that sufficient people realise the benefits which could easily accrue from the adoption of a decimal system.
Another argument is that any new scheme would not have the same international confidence as the present £ sterling. The reason why I commend this Bill to the House is that there need be no alteration in the overall value of sterling by the adoption of its provisions. In fact, the advantage of this system, which in my view is much better than any other system, is that there need be no alteration in real values of our coinage, with the exception of the penny. The value of 10s. and £1 would be the same. The crown, halfcrown, florin and shilling would remain the same value.
That, I think, does much to dispose of the arguments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland on the

cost of the alteration of slot machines using coins. The obvious example is the parking meter into which one has to put a 6d. piece. If decimal coinage as envisaged by the Bill were brought about the parking meter would remain. The coin to be inserted would remain exactly as it is, the present 6d. or 1s., and its value would be the same. The only alteration would be that the "6d." instead of being made up of six pennies would represent five pennies. The 1s. would have exactly the same value.
It is only at the bottom end of the scale that one can see any alteration in values. It is only when we begin talking of goods priced at 1d., 2d. and 3d. that there is any change. Many people have suggested that this new concept would bring about a rise in the cost of living. I cannot accept that as a fair argument. What I have attempted to show is that this can only affect the pricing at the very bottom of the scale. I should be very strongly against any alteration which allowed for a sudden rise in the cost of living hidden in an alteration in the system of coinage, but the concept outlined in this Bill does not do that.
The third argument against decimalisation is that nearly every step would cost money. At the moment the financial position of the United Kingdom is such that we need every penny invested in more productive investment rather than on this project which perhaps would bear no new wealth for the economy. Let us face the facts quite squarely. A very considerable amount of money is likely to be involved. Having given this matter very serious thought, it seemed to me that it would be very nearly impossible to do this under £100 million. I believe that is the very lowest figure if fair allowances are to be made to industries on the costs of the changeover.
Another argument is that new methods would have to be evolved in industry both in the concept of bookkeeping and in commerce, and new methods of education. Time would be wasted in working out these new methods. I think that is pretty good nonsense. Obviously in education decimalisation is taught now completely and utterly throughout British schools. What is of particular interest and of which the House should be informed is that many firms in this country today convert £s,


shillings and pence into decimals for their internal auditing and for pricing abroad and their prices are in point so much to a pound. Nothing could be more foolish than to have a £s, shillings and pence system with each industry, in ever-growing numbers, converting into a decimal system which is its own conception rather than one accepted as the coinage of the nation.
It is argued that the labour provision which would be necessary to create the new change machines used in shops and the alterations necessary in present calculating money machines would be very considerable. It is said that there is not enough trained manpower to deal with this problem at the moment and that we should not take technicians from their other work to do this alteration.

Mr. Proudfoot: Would not my hon. Friend admit that we are on the thresh-hold of more and more mechanisation in business? Businesses are getting increased mechanisation. This is another reason why we should go in for this change as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend was always very quick off the mark. He has taken my argument on the point I was trying to make. The longer we hold up this matter, the bigger will be the problem of conversion.
What I hope will go out from this debate is that all producers and manufacturers of any form of calculating or money machines should ensure that the new machines can be most simply converted to a decimal system. Any businessman or company who buys machinery of this sort should demand from the firm selling the machinery that it can be easily converted. In that way many businesses and much industry would be able to save considerable costs in future.

Mr. Proudfoot: I also assume that my hon. Friend acknowledges that if we go in for this change the buyers of these machines will have a much wider selection. There will be more competition in the market, which I believe would be a good thing.

Mr. Emery: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As he knows, I am asso

ciated with the professional association of buyers, the Purchasing Officers' Association. That is a body of over 6,000 men who are spending thousands of millions of pounds every year. At their annual conference last year, after much consideration they came out nearly unanimously in favour of this proposal and asked to be able to wait on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade to urge the Government to takes these steps as soon as possible. That is not the only professional association concerned. Nearly every professional and industrial association in the country has been urging this action on the Government.
Another argument against decimalisation is that during the period of alteration there would be chaos and no one would know where he was. There would have to be a period in which two systems of money were running together and firms would not know which system to use. They might receive orders in one system and give invoices in the other. In marketing the operation might be open to fraud or fast practice because people would not fully understand the new money and the different values. The advantage about the values is that there would be hardly any alteration.
Secondly—and this is overwhelming—if in India in 1958 and in South Africa in 1961 they were able to bring about decimalisation of their coinages with a large section of the population illiterate, surely we in this country ought not to have any real problems. Of course, it would take a little time to get used to and there would be a certain amount of confusion, but I believe that basically it would be infinitesimal compared with the advantages which could accrue.
It is to the arguments for decimalisation that I want now to turn attention. Surely no one can deny that decimals work more smoothly, more quickly, more easily and are much more earlier understood by children and people who do not understand the language, than our present system of coinage. That seems irrefutable and of the greatest importance.
The second argument in favour is the economy that could be obtained in industry and business by working with a decimal system. The time of accounting


and dealing with financial transactions, it is estimated, would be cut by 75 per cent.
Economies in the teaching of the arithmetic of money in schools, it is estimated by the report of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, would be about 7 per cent. This is very considerable, and there is surely no doubt that younger children would be able to grasp the working of money much earlier in their lives than they are on the present system. In the same way, in business the clerical position is such that one would find it much simpler to recruit bookkeepers, who find, on the whole, more often than not, that the system of £ s. d. is complicated, whereas the decimal system would be largely a matter of plain addition without any major problems.
It is right and proper to consider that we should be conforming to the rest of the world. I do not think that one need conform for the sake of conformity or change for the sake of change, but I believe that commercially and internationally there would be great value and great strength in being able to fit in with the monetary system which is understood by so many other countries. It seems to me that when we are dealing with this matter it is imperative that in this vast international field of competition we, as Parliament, should be able to give every advantage to our industry in order that they may compete with firms abroad. This is just another method which we could use.
I should like to turn for a moment to the length of time which it would be necessary to take in making any change. The general view on this matter seems to be that a number of years would be necessary before the proposed action was taken. In other words, after the statement that we were to change, it would be essential to have a period of time before the change took effect. It would be absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the announcement today and to expect to have a change-over at the end of the year. It would be necessary to have two or three years in which industry could prepare itself for this operation. It would then be able to consider the problem of the dislocation which might arise, and there would be a feeling that the Government were taking every step

to ensure that when the system was introduced it worked easily and efficiently.
I shall close with three questions to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Have the Treasury any views on what the total cost of this change would be, without waiting for the report of Lord Halsbury's Committee on decimal coinage? Have they any views on what the length of time of change-over should be? I am interested that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is here to reply because his own family, the Milton Asquiths, have contributed to funds to bring about a change in this direction, and I hope that he will follow the very sound teachings of some of the elders associated in family with him to bring this about.
Will he comment on the most ingenious suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland about a decimalisation fund and the method of producing the money for this fund? The raiding of the Chancery Division of the High Court and the using of the funds dormant there to bring about such a major economic change has great originality and might considerably ease the burden on the taxpayer in bringing this about.
Will my hon. Friend ask Lord Halsbury's Committee on decimal coinage to get a move on? Will he ask the Commitee to report as soon as possible? Obviously it will be many years before the final effects of this debate are felt throughout the country, and I believe that it is only right and proper to exercise as much haste in the preparations now as possible and to show it in the statements which are made. We have put this off and procrastinated long enough.
Will my hon. Friend urge that we should have this report from the Committee at the very earliest moment? If not, will he support the Bill and take it to Committee and alter it there? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and myself, as sponsors of the Bill, would be only too delighted to listen to sensible and well-reasoned Amendments and perhaps even to alterations in part of the principle. But the point is, will he get a move on, because that is what I believe the people of this country want?

2.57 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I did not have the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) introduce the Bill, and I apologise for not being present then and also to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for not hearing his speech. I want briefly to say something about the industrial aspect of the problem of decimal coinage and its importance.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. I imagine that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in his reply, will refer to the Halsbury Committee and will say that we cannot go much further until he hears what that Committee reports, but it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) said, that we ought to get a move on with this matter. I do not know whether other hon. Members have previously made historical references to what Mr. Gladstone said about decimal coinage in 1845, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said,
I cannot doubt that the decimal system of coinage would be of universal advantage in monetary transactions. The weight of authority on that head is irresistible.
Since then there have been a great many Royal Commissions and Select Committees. We must bring the matter to a head, because we must settle the question of decimal coinage. There are four main reasons for this from the business and industrial point of view, and I should like to state what they are. The first is the possibility of our joining the Common Market and the rapid growth in potential trading importance of Asian countries, all with decimal coinage, such as Russia, Japan, India and China. The second reason is the rapid increase in mechanisation of typing and other business methods and the increase in the importance of our export trade which is related to that. Most other countries have already adopted decimal coinage. One hundred and forty-five countries have done so, seventy of which have changed since 1900. Thirty out of forty-eight countries in the Commonwealth have already changed. In my view, the balance of advantage is clear, although I agree that there are great complications in bringing it about.
Those of us who are concerned with business think that calculating and

accounting machines would then be standardised, which would be a great advantage. The key question is which system should be adopted. This is the biggest problem. That is what will no doubt mostly engage the attention of the Halsbury Committee. The Bill is based on the ten shilling/cent system, as introduced in South Africa. Many students believe that this is the best system. I am associated with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which produced a report with the British Association for the Advancement of Science. There is very little doubt that the choice lies between the ten shilling/cent system and the pound/mil system. In these circumstances, I hope that the Halsbury Committee will very soon report on a choice of systems.
The next question will be that of conversion and replacing machines. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading said that he regarded £100 million as the minimum cost. The A.B.C.C. report estimates that between £128 million and £135 million is much more likely to be the figure if the cost is to be covered by savings within about ten years. If the Halsbury Committee has made a study of this, as I am sure that it has, I hope that business people connected with the problem of conversion will be informed as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Emery: Does not the cost vary according to how much alteration there would have to be in slot and money machines? Under the system envisaged in the Bill there would not have to be any alteration because the same system and size of coinage would be used—one shilling, the florin, the half-crown and the sixpence, which would be worth fivepence. Therefore, we should cut out quite a considerable cost. It is on this basis that I estimate a cost of £100 million.

Mr. Neave: I agree with my hon. Friend. For that reason the decision on the choice of coinage system to be used is important. Once we know the system of coinage to be used people will be very much better informed and reassured about what their position will be on conversion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will have something to say about that, because I know that there is a good deal of uncertainty and anxiety in the business


world about what this would mean. Subject to this, I support the Bill and hope that the Halsbury Committee, whose terms of reference are well known to the House, will be able to report as soon as possible. There cannot be any doubt that a system of decimal coinage will be to our great advantage if we join the Common Market, which I very much hope we shall. If we do, I hope that conversion will take place as smoothly as possible. The choice of system is the key matter. It is a very technical matter and I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to give us some assurances about the progress of the Halsbury Committee.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I should like to start, as others have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) on his introduction of the Bill. Anything he tackles he tackles with great zeal and enthusiasm, and he has carried on his campaign for decimal coinage with these characteristics. Having said that, however, I must say that I do not think that this is the type of major change which can be made by a Private Member's Bill. I therefore hope that the House will not accept the Bill today.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) was kind enough to say some nice things about me, for which I thank him very much. I hope that I shall not disappoint him too much in some of the things I shall say this afternoon, because I think that he, unlike the hon. Member for Cleveland, made rather exaggerated claims for the value of a changeover to a decimal system of coinage.
It is extremely important that we should have this debate now, because the Government have set up the Halsbury Committee to look into the whole question. The Government took a really extraordinary decision; the Committee was set up not to decide whether or not we should have decimal coinage but how we should bring decimal coinage about. The Government are, therefore, committed in principle to the idea of decimal coinage, although with the qualification that if the cost should prove too heavy they will not necessarily carry out that principle. They have not yet stated their reasons for coming even to

that decision in principle. This debate will, therefore, be useful, particularly if the Economic Secretary indicates what the Government have in mind. We must, of course, first see how the Halsbury Committee reports before dealing with the various detailed decisions that will have to be taken if the Government go ahead.
The first of a number of preliminary points that I have in mind is that there is sometimes a confusion between the decimal coinage system and the metric system of weights and measures. It is important to get out of our minds that the two systems are necessarily connected. They are obviously connected in a fairly intimate way, but it would be possible for us to have decimal coinage without the metric system of weights and measures. Several countries do so, the most outstanding example being the United States.
The difficulties of changing over to the metric system are considerably greater than those involved in the change-over to decimal coinage. Unlike the decimal system, the metric system is not predominant in the world. For example, it is not predominant in engineering, where the 1b.-inch system, largely because of the influence of Great Britain, the United States and some other countries is dominant at present. But although we do not expect the Government to say anything about the metric system of weights and measures, we ought, because decimal coinage and the metric system are closely connected, to be applying our minds, in particular, to the rationalisation of our weights and measures. Even if we do not accept the idea of going over to the metric system, there is much to be said for some nationalisation, and I hope that, among the other things the Government are considering, they are considering that.
The basic argument so far used by hon. Members who favour this Bill is that it would represent a much more logical and simpler method of coinage than the present one. Our present coinage suffers from the two fundamental disadvantages that we have a double standard of unit—twelve pennies to a shilling and twenty shillings to a £—and that calculation in twelves and twenties is contrary to our normal system of notation, which works in tens.


Nevertheless, we should be rather careful about making exaggerated claims for the ease and simplicity of the decimal system.
There is a common misconception, for instance, that it is only with the decimal system—which, strictly speaking, means working with a unit of ten—that we can have anything like a decimal point or a decimal place, but the fact is that we can work a decimal or a point system with any system of arithmetic, whatever unit is used. The really up-to-date arithmetic is done, presumably, by the electronic computers. It is interesting to note that computers do not work on a decimal system, but use binary arithmetic—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) might be interested in this—which only has two units, zero and one.
I suppose that if it is perfectly possible for electronic computers to do this it would be possible to use the binary arithmetical system for our ordinary transactions. I suppose that that could be done and the fact that the decimal system is not the only one which gives this facility for using a points or placing system is worth bearing in mind.
Some mathematicians think that the duo-decimal system—which employs the base of twelve rather than ten—is more convenient than the ordinary decimal system. I do not imagine that we could easily get the public, at the moment, anyway, to accept the idea that we should go over to a duo-decimal system because world movement is in favour of the decimal system. Yet it is worth mentioning this point because those who are most enthusiastic about decimal coinage talk as if those who make certain qualifications and cautionary remarks about it are somehow impossibly conservative and are not willing to get up to date with a progressive system.
In fact, the decimal coinage system has a long history. It was introduced in France more than 150 years ago, so that getting up to date by having it is really only relative. The arguments adduced today, particularly by the hon. Member for Reading, are worth considering in some detail because it is easy to make exaggerated claims about

the benefits that would accrue to us if we had decimal coinage. There is no doubt that for office work it would be very much simpler to work with decimal coinage than with £ s. d., although it is difficult to estimate what the eventual saving in office time would be.
The hon. Member for Reading mentioned the possible saving of 75 per cent. I would not be rash enough to suggest an exact figure, but it is not risking a great deal to say that it is grossly exaggerating the matter to suggest that it would be as high as 75 per cent. There would be a saving, but it would not be anything like as high as that.
The transitional cost would be very high. The figure quoted in the joint report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce was £128 million, but that was not for every machine that would be involved. It was for cash registers and adding and accounting machines generally. But if we add the cost of other machines specifically excluded from the figure, but which would also be affected, including the cost in ordinary man hours apart from anything else involved in offices and other commercial organisations, the cost would be extremely high indeed.
It could be reduced if there was sufficient notice given in advance of the change. Once we decide to change, if we do, the sooner the decision is made the lower the cost is likely to be. As I say, this will happen as long as there is a proper transitional period because the number of office machines in use is increasing all the time. This brings me to the question, about which I hope we shall receive some news from the Government, of who shall bear this substantial cost. Should it be industry and commerce or should the Government take a share in it? In any case, in the ordinary way of things, the Government would take a share because any cost of conversion would be deductible for tax purposes. Thus the Government, at least indirectly, would bear a part of the cost. But there are some in industry and commerce, no doubt, who would like the Government to bear the whole cost. I think that we should have some idea of what the Government think about this. I for one would be very reluctant to support a Measure in which


the full cost of the conversion fell on the Exchequer. There are many more important and desirable things on which the Government could be spending money at this time.
We are told by supporters of decimal coinage that a change to the decimal system would help us considerably in international trade since most countries in the world are far more accustomed to using a decimal coinage. I have no doubt that there would, at least, be a certain psychological advantage in it, but, interestingly enough, when the British Association committee took evidence from our overseas trade commissioners, the view was that any difficulties which people overseas had with our coinage were really negligible in their effect on international trade. I think that that is the reasonable view. A good deal of any difficulties we have, if there be such, could be overcome quite simply by our exporters quoting prices not only in £ s. d. but in foreign currencies as well. This is the simple thing to do, and there is no evidence at present that our trade is suffering substantially because of our form of coinage.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Report? It refers to the very point he has just raised and suggests that there is difficulty, especially in Latin American countries, as a result of our coinage system. The hon. Gentleman has put a different interpretation on it.

Mr. Millan: The Report refers to it, I agree. I have not a copy by me, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, if he refers again to the conclusions, that the general consensus of opinion was that this was not a substantial factor. I do not say that there have not been difficulties in certain areas, but the effect of the Report is that, although these difficulties might have caused a bit of irritation or annoyance, they were not a substantial factor in determining the level of our overseas trade.
The same goes for tourism. I imagine that difficulties about coinage are considerably less than difficulties about language. If we wanted to encourage more tourists to come to this country, we might take the trouble to induce our ordinary citizens to learn foreign

languages so that they could occasionally talk to visitors in their own language, as people overseas talk to us in English, rather than force them always to learn English if they wish to talk to English people when they come here. This cannot be a substantial factor. It may put off a small number of particularly sensitive people, but I could not accept that its effect was substantial. Nor do I think that it would necessarily follow, if we went into the Common Market, that we should want to go over to a decimal coinage for any reasons of trade there, although there might be psychological or even political advantages, if we were in the Common Market, in having a decimal coinage as the other Common Market countries do.
My main criticism of the Report of the British Association is not of its consideration of how a decimal coinage would affect trade and commerce but of the rather less attention it gave, for example, to the education aspects of the matter. The evidence which the British Association took about education was very slight in comparison with the evidence it took about trade and commerce. Since its evidence has not been published—there is no complaint about that, of course, and we are extremely grateful to the British Association for the amount of work it has done—it is a little difficult to judge some of the claims which are made. I think that the hon. Member for Reading exaggerated the claims he made about the savings there would be in education and the teaching of mathematics.
There is a great deal of dissatisfaction about the teaching of mathematics nowadays, and far too many children leave school without having any real facility for numbering at all. Something must be done about this in any case. It was pointed out in the Report of the British Association that one advantage, at least, of our present system of coinage is that it does involve children in the exercise of more mental arithmetic than a decimal coinage would, so that, by the age of 12, our children are very much more facile in mental arithmetic that, for instance, French children who work with a decimal coinage. That is not an argument against decimal coinage. It is simply an argument that the educational aspects, both transitionally


and from a permanent point of view, should not rest exclusively on the point that decimal coinage would be easier to work with than £ s. d. Other implications have to be taken into account.
I was disappointed and rather disturbed that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the appointment of the Halsbury Committee, nothing was said about the educational aspect. I should like to be assured that among the other things that it considers, that Committee will consider the educational implications of the change to decimal coinage.
The general public also has to be taken into account. By and large, the general public would not want to change, if only because of inertia. I do not suggest that that should make us reluctant to make the change, but in a democratic assembly we ought to remind ourselves that the general public need to be considered to a certain extent. If we were going over to decimal coinage, there would have to be a fairly intensive period of what might be called public education to get ordinary people used to the idea that a new coinage was coming into circulation, with all the difficulties and the transitional period of unfamiliarity and the facilities for fraud on the part of unscrupulous traders and all the rest.

The question also has been mentioned of the unit of currency and the extent to which the £ is a familiar currency in international trade. I am not sure that there is not a considerable amount of mystique about this. Some of the fears about it are grossly exaggerated. We should, however, know what the Government think about this, because there is a strong practical difficulty in keeping the £ as the basic unit of currency under a decimal coinage system, the simple reason being that if we divide £1 by 100 we get a basic unit of 2·4d., which, even at today's cost of living and even with the present Government and the inflation that we have been having over the last year or so, is too high a basic unit of currency. Without going into the technicalities, we need an idea of what the Government are thinking.

What I have said so far may sound rather churlish and unenthusiastic, tout it is not meant to be, because I believe

that a decimal coinage system would give us quite considerable advantages. Nevertheless, if we went over to decimal coinage this would not be a great mental breakthrough, as the hon. Member for Cleveland described it, but a comparatively minor reform that might be, in the hon. Member's words, a useful one as an ordinary business decision.

Any advantages that we should get from decimal coinage would accrue indefinitely. It is difficult to put a figure upon them. It is easier to estimate the cost of conversion but much more difficult to estimate the advantages in financial terms, but any advantages—which, obviously, would be substantial—would accrue indefinitely.

To sum up, there could be great advantages, but we ought to keep the matter in prosper perspective and we should have answers to the kind of questions which I have raised this afternoon. I hope that use will be taken of this opportunity to give answers from the Government, because we need a great deal more public discussion of the matter, not simply among mathematicians, economists and newspaper editors, but among the public and in this House.

For the reasons I gave at the outset, we cannot press the Bill as it stands today. However admirable the enthusiasm with which it has been introduced, I do not consider it possible to do the kind of thing that is intended by means of a Private Member's Bill. It has, however, given us this opportunity of discussion and I hope that at the end of it, when we have heard what the Government say, a whole lot of us, myself included, will be much clearer about all the implications of the matter and the kind of decision that we ought in all the circumstances to make about it.

3.25 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am delighted to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and of offering him my congratulations on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench. Having debated with him in past years during the Committee stage of Finance Bills, I am not surprised that the Labour Party has asked him to take on additional duties on its behalf. I have no doubt that we shall again


be discussing one or two aspects of the current Finance Bill in the forthcoming weeks. When I saw the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) sitting immediately behind the hon. Gentleman, I wondered whether he had been appointed the hon. Member's P.P.S. However, that was perhaps a little premature.
This matter we are discussing is one of great general interest and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) pointed out, of some slight personal embarrassment to me, because I understand that my father-in-law has sent a subscription to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) since he considered that the Treasury was being too dilatory in this matter. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland wisely consulted me about what he should do with the money, and we came to the conclusion that he should use the funds to take me out to dinner so that we may discuss the matter thoroughly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland for the consistent interest which he has shown in this matter and also on his most knowledgeable speech this afternoon. Since the publication, in 1960, of the Report by the Committees of the British Association and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, he has put down a number of Questions on the subject of decimalisation. In addition, during the last Session, he tabled a Motion to which there were about eighty signatures but which, unfortunately was never debated.
The House will recall that the last statement in Parliament on this question was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th December last year when he announced the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry, which has been referred to by almost every hon. Member who has spoken in this short debate. In considering this Bill, the terms of reference of that Committee are important and, perhaps, I may remind the House of them. They were:

(a) to advise on the most convenient and practical form which a decimal currency might take, including the major and minor units to be adopted;
(b) to advise on the timing and phasing the changeover best calculated to minimise the cost;

(c) to estimate the probable amount and incidence of the cost to the economy of proposals based on (a) and (b).

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading asked whether I would say anything today about the Government's view on the likely costs involved and on the period of change which would be required. I am very reluctant to do that because, as hon. Members have said, both these matters are within the preserve of the Committee of Inquiry. Further, as has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides, the costs involved and the period of change must, to some extent, depend on the major and minor units eventually selected.
Now that the Committee of Inquiry has been set up, I hope that the House will agree that it would be unwise to go further until we have its Report. Therefore, I am afraid that, with the best will in the world to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, I cannot advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. Nevertheless, the expressions of view which have been made will, I am sure, be of help to the Committee. I say to my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Reading that the Committee is certainly pressing ahead with its work as fast as possible and that it is likely that its Report will be available early next year. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon that in the interests of the business world it is highly desirable that a decision should be made known as soon as possible.
Decimalisation is not a question which the House can discuss with the feeling that much fresh ground is being covered. The matter has been under consideration in this country ever since a decimal coinage was introduced in France in 1799. In the early part of the nineteenth century, opinion was rather more in favour of the change than in later years. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading referred to Royal Commissions which were in favour of a change to a decimal coinage, and I have no doubt that he had in mind the Royal Commissions of 1838 and 1843.
Those Commissions recommended decimalising the £ by dividing it into 1,000 farthings and introducing the "double shilling", the florin, which came


into being in 1849. Still decimal coinage has not been introduced, but I think that the House should also know, to get the matter into perspective, that in 1856 and 1868 two more Royal Commissions reported against disturbing the existing system.
In 1918, the Report of the most recently Royal Commission on coinage came out against any change in the existing system, because its view was that:
the advantages to be gained by a change to the £ and mil scheme as regards keeping accounts is in no way commensurate with the loss of the convenience of the existing system for other purposes.
In 1960, of course, the joint report of the Committees of the British Association and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce was published urging the Government to take an early decision in principle for or against decimalisation. Certainly that report has revived widespread public interest.
If the existing system is changed, any new currency system will be a decimal one as distinct from a duo-decimal one or any other system involving a multiplier other than ten. There are undoubtedly many theoretical advantages in a duo-decimal system and it has some distinguished protagonists. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland referred to the distinguished mathematician Professor Aitken. In the Treasury we recently came across a letter from the late Lord Keynes, written in 1945 from Washington and containing the following passage:
I confess to some emotions of duo-decimal conservatism. I have always thought that the decimalisation which the Aryans brought in was a trifle vulgar and that the Sumerian origins of our civilisation were more distinguished when they duo-decimalised the fundamental concepts for measuring time and money which they invented. Bradbury who, like me, had no answer to the arguments of the decimaliser, used to say that he could always defeat them by asking the question whether they proposed to decimalise the £ sterling or the penny. In other words, would the £ remain as it is and the penny be altered, or vice versa? By this means he considered the decimalisers would be divided into equal halves and be defeated by the fact that the Sumerian fundamentalists would always include at least one-third of the population.
However strong the intellectual arguments in favour of duo-decimalisation may be, I certainly agree with the hon.

Member for Glasgow, Craigton that this system of currency is not in practice a starter. I say this because it is the decimal system which is preponderantly used throughout the world, and it is only by bringing ourselves into line with those other countries that we can hope to reap the benefit of two of the principal potential advantages of decimalisation. These are that international trading and banking transactions would be easier and that our export trade in business machines and so on would be assisted.
I should like now to deal in general terms with one or two points which have come up during the debate. One hon. Member asked why it was necessary to set up another committee and asked whether this was not just delaying the matter a little too much. Although the Joint Report of the Committees of the British Association and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce was in many ways a valuable study of the subject, it had a number of serious gaps from the Government's point of view. For example, it did not examine at all exhaustively what the main unit of currency should be.

The question was also raised as to why, since the joint report of these two Committees was published in May, 1960, it has taken the Government so long to consider the question of decimalisation. The answer is that the Government thought it necessary to allow time for public opinion to express itself on this question—this matter was referred to by the hon. Member for Craigton—because the convenience of the community is, of course, one of the main considerations involved.

In the interval between May, 1960, and December, 1961, the interest shown here in Parliament, in the Press and in public discussion and in correspondence with Members of Parliament has been a measure of how wide that interest is and how diverse are the views which are held not only on the question of whether to decimalise, but also on the system to be adopted. Who is better qualified to express an opinion than my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, who himself is practically concerned with the grocery trade?

Hon. Members will want to know what happens after the Committee's report has been published. Naturally,


the Government will need some time to consider the report and to decide what action to take on it, but there will certainly not be any undue delay. I agree with the view, expressed almost universally this afternoon, that we must reach a decision as soon as possible. The answer to the question of how long it would take to introduce a decimal currency if we decided to go ahead would depend partly on the views of the Committee on the timing and phasing of the changeover to minimise the cost. However, I must tell the House quite frankly that some considerable preliminary period would undoubtedly be necessary in the event of a decision in favour of decimalisation in order to enable all sections of the community to make preparations for the changeover. Much detailed planning would be necessary, for example, for the orderly conversion of machinery, and time would be needed to pass the necessary legislation and to provide any new notes or coins which would be required.

It might be appropriate at this stage if I mentioned some of the advantages of decimalisation as I see them. I think that it is fair to say that most educationalists, but certainly not all, favour decimalisation. This was a matter which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. Of course, the principle reason is that the notation applied to money would be consistent with that used for ordinary numbers, whereas with pounds, shillings and pence it is markedly different and much more difficulty.

A change to decimal currency would lead to a noticeable saving in time and effort on the part of pupils and teachers. I am sure that that must be accepted by all. Estimates of the time saved in the teaching of money sums have varied from 7 per cent., the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Reading to a suggestion that all the time involved would be saved. This latter somewhat optimistic view is based on the assumption that there is no need to teach money as a separate subject when it is expressed in the same terms as the ordinary notation.

Decimalisation would also lead to some undoubted advantages in the business and commercial world. Whether

clerical operations are carried out manually or mechanically, they would be simpler if we changed over to decimal coinage. The handling of cash, the calculation of bills, the preparation of salaries and wages would all be made easier. International trading and banking transactions would be simplified as so many countries now use decimal coinage that a decimal currency system in one country is obviously easily understood in another. Finally, United Kingdom manufacturers of mechanised calculating and accounting equipment for export to markets with decimal currency could cease to produce £ s. d. types of machines, with some consequent reduction in costs.

As for the disadvantages of changing over to decimal currency, probably the most important is the transitional cost. It is therefore most important to get as reliable an estimate as possible of the cost to the economy and to the Exchequer so that this can be considered both in relation to the claims of other demands on the economy and to the economic benefits to be derived from the changeover. It is equally important to consider how the operation could best be timed to minimise the cost, consistent with avoiding what we do not want to have—too long and drawn out a period of transition.

These are difficult and complicated matters because of the number of variable factors that have to be taken into account. Amongst these variable factors are the different possible systems which we might use, the extent to which new denominations will have to be minted, and the period of the changeover. The Committee of Inquiry will be considering these, and its advice and finding on these matters will, of course, be of great importance.

The other disadvantages of the changeover are mainly, I think, the temporary inconvenience and confusion that would be caused, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading that this should not be one of the primary considerations.

Mr. Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of cost, will he comment on Clause 6 of the Bill which deals with meeting some of this cost in a rather original way?

Mr. Barber: I would rather not. I appreciate the attraction of trying to assist my hon. Friend to reach a conclusion on the Bill, but in the circumstances I should prefer to await the Report of the Committee of Inquiry. The terms of reference do not inhibit the Committee from expressing any views it may have on the number, size, and composition of the coins in whatever system it recommends. The design of any new coins, however, will not be a matter for the Committee, but one for the Royal Mint Advisory Committee which, as the House knows, is presided over by the Duke of Edinburgh.
I do not think that it would be appropriate on this occasion for me to get drawn into any detailed discussion on the best system of decimalisation because this is one of the principal matters which the Committee of Inquiry is considering. Nevertheless, this aspect has been touched on by a number of hon. Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and other hon. Members have pointed out that it is not at all easy to decide what would be the best decimal currency system for the United Kingdom to adopt because the £ does not lend itself very readily to decimalisation.
If it is divided into 100 sub-units, they will be worth 2·4d. each, which is probably too large to serve conveniently as the smallest unit of a currency system. To divide these smaller units into halves or quarters would seem to rob the system of its truly decimal character. On the other hand, to divide the £ into 1,000 units would involve all the inconvenience of three places of decimals, and would mean that the smallest unit would be extremely small in value.
In view of the rôle that the £ has played in international trade and as a reserve currency, any decision to replace it by, say, a unit of 10s which was suggested by one of my hon. Friends, would, I think, require very careful consideration. But here again I want to be as forthcoming as I can. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland that this again should not be an overriding consideration, although I do not think that we should minimise the importance of the rôle

which the £ sterling has played, and of the name itself.
The advantage of a 10s. unit is that if split into one-hundredths it would provide a small unit of a convenient size. We should have to find a new name for the 10s. unit. I do not want to intervene in the private dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading. Some names have already been suggested. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland suggested that it should be called a "new pound", and other suggestions have been a "royal", a "Britannia", a "sterling", and even a "noble".
The other possibility is a system based on the penny, which has recently been canvassed in some quarters. The suggested advantage of this system is that amounts of 1d and multiples would not need to be changed. Against this, it must be recognised that the new major unit would stand in an extremely awkward relationship to the pound. At the outset, therefore, all statistics, contracts and records expressed in pounds would have to be multiplied by 2·4. Further, apart from the halfpenny and penny, no existing coin could satisfactorily continue to circulate for any length of time.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the Commonwealth. I want to assure the House that we are in close touch with our friends in the Commonwealth on this matter. In December last we kept them fully informed of our proposals for setting up the Committee of Inquiry. In addition, my right hon. Friend discussed this question with his colleagues the Finance Ministers of New Zealand and Australia when they met in Ghana during the meeting of the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council last September. The Governments of New Zealand and Australia are committed in principle to the change, and the timing of the changeover in the three countries will almost inevitably necessitate some co-ordination because of the difficulties for machine manufacturers.
The position of other Commonwealth countries in the question of decimalisation varies. Some countries, such as Canada, East Africa, Ceylon and Malaya, have always had a decimal system. Others, such as India and Pakistan, have changed to a decimal


currency, as have Burma and South Africa—countries which are not in the Commonwealth but with which we have close associations. Cyprus and the British Caribbean have also recently changed to the decimal system. Nigeria has announced her intention of changing over to a decimal system in due course. The Government of Eire have also accepted in principle the desirability of changing over, and a Government Committee has recently been set up in that country to consider the best means of making the changeover. It will therefore be clear that if the Australians, New Zealanders and Nigerians decimalise, almost all the Commonwealth will have changed to a decimal system.
In conclusion, may I again congratulate my hon. Friend and thank him for giving the House the opportunity of discussing what is undoubtedly a very important question? I hope that he will realise that with the consideration now being given to the matter by the Committee of Inquiry I could not sensibly advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. If it is decided to change over to a decimal currency it will almost certainly be necessary to introduce quite complicated legislation. I should also mention that it might be that we should want to use the opportunity for a more general review of our legislation on currency, in order perhaps to bring it a little more up to date.
I have been asked to express my views as clearly as I can on the matter, but I do not want to go too far. There can be no doubt that real advantage would follow from adopting a decimal currency, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland said, this is a business question, and I am sure that the House will agree that no responsible Government could ignore the question of cost, not only in terms of £ s. d. to the Exchequer but also in terms of the burden on the whole economy.
The Committee of Inquiry is pressing on with its work as quickly as possible. As soon as it reports we shall do likewise. As I said at the outset, it is in the interests of the whole country that a decision should be reached and announced as soon as possible.

3.50 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Economic

Secretary to the Treasury has given an assurance that he will not delay unduly as soon as the report is received. It is so often the case that long and complicated reports are produced and it takes an even longer time for Governments to decide on the action that they wish to take, but I welcome this change of heart and the acceptance of the principle that we have to go over to the decimal system of coinage. I am glad that my hon. Friend should take such a forward-looking approach to the whole matter.
The whole House could not but be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot). We know that the possibilities of the Bill receiving a Second Reading may be small but, as he has said, it has given us the first opportunity in a century to discuss in the House this matter of considerable importance. It may well be from the historical point of view, as the Economic Secretary has said, that in 1838 and 1843 the Royal Commissions came out in favour of a change and that in 1856 and 1858 and up to 1918 the various Commissions were not in favour of it, but conditions have changed.
I do not think that anybody fail to be impressed by the report by the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It is a comprehensive document which has gone into almost every aspect of the subject. I agree that it is devoted partly to the metric system but that does not in any way detract from its value in dealing with the other side of the picture.
If the Bill does not receive a Second Reading today, this will not prevent my hon. Friend from bringing forward a Bill in the next Session, but after hearing the Economic Secretary I am convinced that that will not be necessary and that the Government will act as quickly as possible in the matter. The country is interested in it. We have to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages, but it is important to realise that we have arrived at a situation where we have all decided what we want to do and it is a question now of how we can do it and how long a period of transition is to be given to the changeover. There will be, of course, opposition, as always when it comes to


changes, but I do not think that anyone in his senses could possibly imagine that the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages.
One of the real problems touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland is the difficulty and cost of converting calculating, adding and slot machines. This is something on which I do not think the Economic Secretary could put a price, but if we put a price on the cost of doing it today the price in future may well be three or four times as much. In every industry which is attempting to become more efficient there is more and more mechanisation. Calculating and adding machines are being incorporated into business methods. Therefore, if we leave this change-over for another ten years the cost of altering these machines will be astronomical.
Firms which produce these machines now should have in their minds the inevitable changes which will take place later. They should make a point of devising machines which can be easily converted. This makes it all the more important that a decision should be taken on the actual system, because it must be on the basis of that change that manufacturers must design their machines for the inevitable switch-over to the new system of coinage. I consider that this may cost the country a very large sum of money. In some of the more advanced shops where there is self-service the customer's bill is not added up on paper but machines are used which may cost £60, £70 or £80 or even £100.

Mr. Proudfoot: My hon. Friend is not quite correct. These machines cost up to £600.

Dr. Glyn: I accept my hon. Friend's correction, but I think he will agree that it depends on the type of machine. There are now produced some very small machines in the form of fairly simple ready reckoners which shop assistants are using. I was not referring to the more complicated machines used by the larger groups of firms.
My hon. Friend referred to education. I am not worried about that aspect. I do not think it does the children any harm to have to work a little harder

under the present system and it may even improve their mental capacity. I do not think that that is a factor which need enter into the argument.
It is an inconvenience when trading with other nations that we should have a different system of currency and that would warrant a change being made. The report to which I have referred comments on the difficulties experienced by foreign buyers. I think I am right in saying that many firms express their costs in decimals of the £ so it would seem that there is a definite awareness—

Mr. Millan: Such firms should not only express their costs in decimals of £s, shillings and pence. The cost should be expressed in the currency of the country to which the goods are to be sent.

Dr. Glyn: I appreciate the point. Of course, firms must take into consideration the difficulties of a currency system in which there is the pound versus the metric system in the country to which goods are to be exported.
Whatever conclusion we arrive at, I am convinced that it must be done rapidly. Although it would be wrong to exaggerate it, there would be one difficulty arising from the fact that throughout the trading nations of the world the £ is regarded as something which is stable. I fear that any attempt to alter the value of £1 would be interpreted by other countries as a change in the value of the £ sterling. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) feels strongly on this matter. I appreciate that there is a danger, but I do not consider that it is insuperable.
I wish to draw attention to the Schedule to the Bill which I think represents the nearest we can get to the transformation of our currency to a decimal system. There may well be other matters which merit attention but in this way the currency is not dislocated to any great extent. The hon. Member for Cleveland suggested the possibility of doing away with the half-penny and there is perhaps a possibility of doing away with the half-crown and the crown. But it is absolutely essential that we come to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. We can leave it in the hands of


my hon. Friend who has given the House every assurance that the Government will not wait for an—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, SHADWELL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Batsford.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I wish to tell the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who obviously is to reply to what I have to say this afternoon, that the main reason why I have asked for this Adjournment debate is because of what is contained in the Blue Book entitled "A Hospital Plan for England and Wales", particularly on page 109, which deals with a children's hospital in my constituency. That hospital is the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children, Shadwell, E.1.
In the Blue Book this is the only hospital under the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board which it is suggested must close shortly. The Report makes various suggestions about other hospitals under that board, but nothing so drastic as this. I do not know if the hon. Lady knows, but it is a well known secret that the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has been trying for years to close this children's hospital in the same way as it closed a hospital very close to it in Wapping a few years ago, the St. George-in-the-East Hospital. I wonder whether the personnel of the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board feel that there should be no hospitals for the people living in Wapping, Shadwell and Limehouse. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me how many hospitals have been closed in the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board's area since the passing of the National Health Service Act. Let us see whether they are concentrating on closing hospitals in East London.
It is only because the hospital management committee, which appears to have more sense than the regional board, has been objecting to the closing of this hospital for the last four years that it has remained open. The reason that

the hospital management committee is objecting to the closing apparently is that it wants to be satisfied that when this hospital is closed there will be sufficient accommodation for nurses who have to be transferred to the Hackney Hospital as a result of the closures. No satisfaction has been given to the hospital management committee in that respect. But now we have more or less a demand by the experts who have drawn up the hospital's plans for the Ministry of Health that the hospital should shortly be closed. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me exactly what is meant by "shortly". Will it be a week or a month, or five years or ten years? With such announcements we never know exactly what is meant.
When a statement such as this appears in a Blue Book it takes away the incentive of the people who are employed in a hospital and makes the situation very difficult not only for those working in the hospital but for those who have to send their children to the hospital for care and attention. I do not know what the Ministry will do about this plan. I suppose that at the moment nobody knows. But after the experience of the St. George-in-the-East Hospital in Wapping, we know that if the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board says anything at all about closing the hospital, the Ministry will immediately jump at the opportunity of closing it.
I understand that in this case the Stepney Borough Council has already opposed all ideas of closing this hospital following what has been read in the Blue Book on hospital plans for England and Wales. I agree that Ministry officials, who are very kindly souls, have said to the Stepney Borough Council, "You need not worry. We shall consider your representations and consult you before we do anything about it". But I am going back in my mind to the period before the hon. Lady was in the Ministry of Health, and I hope that she will bring about some change in the Ministry's ideas about consultation. When the proposal was made to close the St. George-in-the-East Hospital, the Minister of Health went as far as to come to Wapping with me and two representatives of the regional board to see the area in which the hospital was situated and for me to explain exactly what took


place there and how difficult it would be for the people in the area if the hospital were closed. He not only did that, but he received representations against the closing from the Stepney Borough Council, the Health Committee of the London County Council, No. 5 Divisional Committee of the London County Council, the London Executive Committee of the Health Service, the London Trades Council and trade unions. After all these representations, the hospital was closed.
It will be no good the hon. Lady telling me this afternoon that the Ministry is prepared to reconsider this demand on the part of the proposers of the Hospital Plan and the board to close the hospital. It is no good holding out any hope that we shall get any results from representations. It is nothing but a lot of nonsense to invite interested parties to make representations against the closing of this hospital, because the Ministry's mind is already made up. It is made up by the regional board and by the Hospital Plan.
This is the second Stepney hospital to be closed since the National Health Service Act. The people in this area, the southern area of Stepney—Wapping, St. Georges, Shadwell and Limehouse—will have nothing when this hospital is closed, whereas before the passing of the Act they had two hospitals. They have to pay higher National Health contributions, but the Ministry and the regional board tell them, "It is all right. You have nothing to worry about. You can go to another hospital".
Do these most experienced persons ever take into account the incomes of people who have to go to these hospitals? Do they know how much it costs in fares to go from Wapping to Mile End Hospital, for example, because very few of these people can go into London Hospital because that caters for people coming from Essex? It costs a great deal in fares, time and inconvenience to a sick person. Neither the Ministry nor the regional board has done anything to overcome the difficulties created by the closure of the St. George-in-the-East Hospital. They will do nothing at all if eventually they agree, as I am sure that they will, to the closing of this hospital in Shadwell.
Have they thought about this? Why should poor people, old-age pensioners and people on low incomes be forced to travel farther and farther to receive hospital treatment which they were able to get nearer at hand twenty or thirty years ago? Is this what is called a National Health Service? Hospital facilities are being taken away. If that is what a National Health Service is, I do not know where we are getting to. On this occasion the Ministry must pay far more attention to the needs of the people than it did when St. George-in-the-East was closed.
If the Ministry and the regional board desire to take these services away from the people in the southern half of Stepney, is it not possible, if they have a case for closing a big building like a hospital, for them to provide some service within the area to prevent these people having to pay these high transport charges and incur the inconvenience which they will have to incur as a result of the hospital being closed?
Is it not possible to replace it with something? I must be careful what I say now, but I understand that when the closing of the St. George-in-the-East Hospital was suggested by the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, the Ministry expected some sort of clinic to be put in its place. But nothing happened; the hospital was simply cleared out. We have enough bombed sites and bare sites in Stepney without the Ministry making more. When the St. George-in-the-East Hospital was closed by the board, with the consent of the Minister of Health of the day, it was just left empty, and the children in the neighbourhood smashed every window in it. No thought was given to redeveloping the site. The board just said, "Shut the hospital, stop the people going in, and let it go to hell."
If the worst comes to the worst, and even if the people at the Ministry of Health are no more sympathetic than were those in charge when the St. George-in-the-East Hospital was closed, will the Minister tell the board to do something? In any case, as I said at the time of the closing of the St. George-in-the-East Hospital, nine out of ten of the board members do not know the first thing about East London. They come from Clacton and all over Essex,


trying to get new hospitals for that part and, at the same time, supporting any closing of hospitals in my part.
It is about time that my people got some consideration from the board and from the Ministry, and I hope that the hon. Lady will assure me that if representations are made by interested parties—and we are told that they will be invited—those representations will be considered, and not thrown into the waste-paper basket as they were before. I hope that every interested party will be allowed to put its case against the closing of yet another hospital in Stepney before action is taken.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I must make it clear from the outset that my right hon. Friend has not yet finally decided the future of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Shadwell. It is true that closure is foreshadowed in the Hospital Plan but, as paragraph 49 of that Plan makes abundantly clear, the final decision can be made only after consultation with interested bodies.
My right hon. Friend is aware that the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has it in mind to propose the closure of this hospital. I think that the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) knows—indeed, he has said so this afternoon—that when it was proposed to close St. George-in-the-East Hospital, opportunities were made for representations to be made, and there will be an opportunity for all those interested to make their views known about this present proposal—

Mr. W. Edwards: But are they to be ignored, as they were ignored before?

Miss Pitt: I do not accept that they were ignored. I have not looked at the history. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I was not at the Department at that time. I am sure, however, that they were given full consideration and I can say to the hon. Gentleman today that I am equally sure that such representations as are made will be very fully considered by the regional hospital board, which is the planning authority for this area. It is very important both that representations should be made and that

they should be considered. My right hon. Friend will certainly take all representations into account before making his decision.
I may be asked, in view of this, why it was necessary to make the forthright statement in the Hospital Plan that it will be possible to close the branch of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Shadwell shortly. The answer is that a plan of this nature must make forthright statements of the main lines of policy if it is to be a realistic basis for planning. Only by this means can it be an effective stimulus to honest and lively discussion. This debate is an example of what can and should be happening to help us to make this bold plan really work.
Although my right hon. Friend has not yet received formal application for approval of the closure of this hospital, I think it right that I should make a few comments on the known facts which he will have to take into account if the regional hospital board makes a formal approach to him. The hospital has a long and honoured history. The East London Hospital at Shadwell was first started in 1868 by a brilliant young surgeon called Nathaniel Hekford and his wife. They took over a loft of a sail maker's warehouse in the Ratcliffe Highway not far from the site of the present hospital.
Having used all their own money in providing treatment for poor sick children in that part of East London between Limehouse and Tower Bridge, they had to face the threat of it being closed down. The hon. Gentleman may feel that there is an historical parallel here but, as I hope to show later, the present threat, as he no doubt feels it, arises from different and more honourable reasons.
On this occasion Charles Dickens came to the help of Dr. Nathaniel Hekford. He passed the building while looking for local colour for one of his books. He was told about the financial predicament and he immediately launched a public appeal which was most successful. Dickens wrote two articles about the hospital; one, in the typical emotional tones of the literature of the time, was called "Star of the


East" and, in the other, he told the story of Nathaniel Hekford and his own interest in the hospital. He wrote
I felt as though the child implored me to tell the story of the little hospital. Laying my world worn hand upon that little unmarked clasped hand at the chin I gave it a silent promise that I would do so".
It is not surprising that Dickens got the money for the Hekfords. The appeal was, in fact, so successful that not only were the Hekfords able to continue their fine work, but the site of the present hospital was bought and a new hospital built. The hospital has continued its work on this site for more than eighty years. In 1932 the title was changed to the Princess Elizabeth of York Hospital for Children.
Many famous doctors and nurses have served on the staff. Many thousands of patients have received treatment. In the hospital world the word "Shadwell" has always conjured up a picture of a busy little hospital where excellent work was being done for children in East London and where hundreds of doctors and nurses have acquired specialised knowledge of children's diseases.
In the 1930s it was apparent that the hospital ought to be rebuilt, but it was decided not to build in London but to have a new "country hospital for town children" at Banstead in Surrey. Banstead was built and is actively carrying on its function as a country hospital for town children. But war and subsequent events caused the various governing authorities to retain Shadwell in its present form. In the general interests of East London's sick children, it was decided to amalgamate the Queen's Hospital in Hackney Road with the Princess Elizabeth Hospital at Shadwell as one organisation. In 1942, an Act of Parliament established what is now the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children. The three parts of the hospital—Hackney Road, Shadwell and Banstead, together with a convalescent home at Bexhill—are now administered by the Queen Elizabeth Group Management Committee.
I have mentioned the history of the hospital to show that my right hon. Friend has a very acute sense of the fine traditions of the hospital and the

affection which it must obviously hold for the people of East London. It is a fine example of the philanthropy and self-help which was characteristic of social work in East London, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself will agree that East London is a very different place now from what it was in the period I have described.

Mr. W. Edwards: Mr. W. Edwards rose—

Miss Pitt: No; I cannot give way because I have a lot to say, and the hon. Gentleman took his full time.

Mr. Edwards: I do not agree with what the hon. Lady said.

Miss Pitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the children of East London today are as healthy and bright-eyed as children of other areas.

Mr. Edwards: Of course, but there are as many children there now as there were before.

Miss Pitt: No, that is not correct, as I shall explain. The children of the East End have their ailments and accidents just like children anywhere, but they no longer suffer from the degrading conditions which caused Charles Dickens to write his highly emotional prose. We all ought to be grateful that it was possible to write in the Hospital Plan that it is no longer necessary to provide special hospital facilities for the children of Stepney. Of course, this is not to argue that they do not need hospital facilities in the area. Of course, they do, and they need them in a convenient and efficient form just as people in those parts of the country best served by hospitals need them. This leads me to the Hospital Plan for the area of which Stepney forms a part.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a very considerable shift of population from East London into the new towns and the outlying parts of Greater London. For example, in 1939, the population of Stepney was 197,000. At the last census, it was down to 92,000. This is the pattern over almost the whole of East London. It is, therefore, quite unrealistic to argue that places like Harlow, Basildon and Barking where so many East Londoners now live should have new hospitals


while maintaining that hospitals in East London should not only be retained but should be increased in size. There might be some justification for this if there were a deficiency in the number of beds in East London, but this is not so.
In fact, there is a very high proportion of hospital beds for the number of population. The trouble is that so many of the beds are by present-day standards in bad hospitals badly served by ancillary facilities. The only answer to this problem is a rationalisation of the hospital services—fewer beds but in properly equipped hospitals. The Hospital Plan aims to do this. It might, I agree, mean that some people have to travel a bit further, but not very much further. Adjacent hospitals are still within a reasonable distance. I have looked at the map and I see that Hackney Road is about 1½ miles away. I do not believe that people will object to paying, perhaps, 6d. bus fare instead of 3d., and, of course, for ambulance cases this consideration will not arise.
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Shadwell is in a most unsatisfactory building. I think that it is a good deal to the credit of the hospital staff that so much good work has been done and is being done at this hospital. As I have explained, it was recognised even before the war that the Children's Hospital at Shadwell needed replacing and the new hospital at Banstead was intended to do this in part.
Throughout the country there has, happily, been a reduction in the demand for paediatric services. This trend, coupled with the effect of migration from East London, has had a marked effect on the work done at the Children's Hospital. Of late, the hospital has been dealing with a much smaller number of children. All the major general hospitals in East London have children's departments, and, for the same reason, they are half empty.

Mr. W. Edwards: Mille End?

Miss Pitt: There is no question of adequate facilities for children not being available close at hand if the Shadwell Hospital is closed. In addition to the 44 beds at Shadwell, there are 386 beds

at hospitals in East London, 80 at Banstead and 120 infectious diseases beds at the Eastern Hospital, most of which are used by children.
The hon. Member has asked what use will be made of the site of the Hospital for Children in Shadwell if it is closed. I repeat that the closing of the hospital has not yet been decided upon, but that, if and when it is, the normal procedure for disposing of hospital property will be followed.
The hon. Member also asked whether we have any idea of providing some form of clinic on the site. I am not sure what he has in mind, whether he means a children's welfare clinic, which is within the province of the local authority, or whether he has in mind an out-patient clinic.

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Miss Pitt: If the hospital is closed and such a proposal were made, it would, of course, be considered. I emphasise again that no final decision has been made about this hospital in Stepney. All interested parties will have an opportunity of making representations. Indeed, they will be encouraged to do so. The question of provision for nurses certainly would be taken into account, although I should be surprised, if closure is decided upon, that there was not adequate accommodation for nurses. Certainly, there will be need for them in other hospitals.
I hope that at the proper time all those interested will make representations, for it is only by having all the facts before him that my right hon. Friend can decide what is a proper course for putting into effect the part of the Hospital Plan which affects the people of Stepney.
I understand and appreciate the concern, the loyalty and the pride of the local people in their hospital and that in some cases that part of the plan which foreshadows closure will be received with reluctance. Some closures will, however, be inevitable if we are to have an up-to-date hospital service which represents current needs and gives the right


opportunities for use of modern medical skill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member asks me to pay attention to the needs of the people. That is the whole purpose of the Hospital Plan—to provide the best possible service for the people who will use it. We shall welcome the interest—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight Minutes to Five o'clock.